[Senate Hearing 112-568]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-568
THE SITUATION IN SYRIA
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 7, 2012
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
76-271 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the
GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office.
Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
JACK REED, Rhode Island JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
JIM WEBB, Virginia ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts
MARK UDALL, Colorado ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
MARK BEGICH, Alaska SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire JOHN CORNYN, Texas
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
Richard D. DeBobes, Staff Director
Ann E. Sauer, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES
The Situation in Syria
march 7, 2012
Page
Panetta, Hon. Leon E., Secretary Of Defense...................... 6
Dempsey, GEN Martin E., USA, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff..... 11
(iii)
THE SITUATION IN SYRIA
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:05 a.m. in room
SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Levin, Lieberman,
Nelson, Webb, Hagan, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, McCain,
Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Brown, Ayotte, Collins, Graham,
and Cornyn.
Committee staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, staff
director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk.
Majority staff members present: Jessica L. Kingston,
research assistant; Michael J. Kuiken, professional staff
member; Jason W. Maroney, counsel; William G.P. Monahan,
counsel; Michael J. Noblet, professional staff member; and Roy
F. Phillips, professional staff member.
Minority staff members present: Adam J. Barker,
professional staff member; Christian D. Brose, professional
staff member; Paul C. Hutton IV, professional staff member; and
Daniel A. Lerner, professional staff member.
Staff assistants present: Hannah I. Lloyd, Brian F. Sebold,
and Bradley S. Watson.
Committee members' assistants present: Vance Serchuk,
assistant to Senator Lieberman; Carolyn Chuhta, assistant to
Senator Reed; Ryan Ehly, assistant to Senator Nelson; Gordon
Peterson, assistant to Senator Webb; Lindsay Kavanaugh,
assistant to Senator Begich; Patrick Day, assistant to Senator
Shaheen; Elana Broitman, assistant to Senator Gillibrand; Ethan
Saxon, assistant to Senator Blumenthal; Lenwood Landrum,
assistant to Senator Sessions; Clyde Taylor IV, assistant to
Senator Chambliss; Joseph Lai, assistant to Senator Wicker;
Charles Prosch, assistant to Senator Brown; Brad Bowman,
assistant to Senator Ayotte; Ryan Kaldahl, assistant to Senator
Collins; Sergio Sarkany, assistant to Senator Graham; and Dave
Hanke, assistant to Senator Cornyn.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Levin. Good morning, everybody. The committee
meets today to hear from Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta
and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Martin E. Dempsey,
USA, to update the committee on the situation in Syria and to
discuss the policies of the administration with respect to
Syria.
It was nearly a year ago that demonstrators in Syria
peacefully took to the streets to call for an end to the rule
of President Assad and demand an opportunity to choose a leader
through a free and fair democratic process. Since those first
days of the uprising, the world has watched as the Syrian
people have continued to challenge the Assad regime's
tyrannical ways. As the weeks and months have passed, peaceful
demonstrators have been killed. The tragedy unfolds daily.
According to the United Nations' (U.N.) most recent
estimates, more than 7,500 people in Syria have been killed and
at least 100 more people are being killed each day. The Assad
regime's brutal crackdown has included gross human rights
violations, use of force against civilians, torture,
extrajudicial killings, arbitrary executions, sexual violence,
and interference with access to medical treatment and other
humanitarian assistance. These acts, when committed as part of
a widespread or systematic attack directed against civilian
populations, as is the case in Syria, amount, in my view, to
crimes against humanity.
President Obama's efforts to build a broad international
coalition to put massive pressure on Assad have been met with
opposition from China and Russia. They vetoed a proposal
brought to the U.N. Security Council by the Arab League to
establish a Syrian-led political transition to a democratic,
pluralistic political system. Despite these vetoes, the U.N.
General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to condemn the Assad
regime's brutal use of force against civilians.
Last week the Friends of Syria, which included
representatives of the Syrian National Council, Secretary
Clinton, and leaders from more than 60 other countries, came
together in Tunis, the home of the first Arab Spring uprising,
to forge a way forward in Syria, including a call for the Assad
regime to end the violence, withdraw its forces from cities and
towns, and ensure unhindered access for Arab League monitors.
The Friends also praised the work of the Syrian National
Council to form a broad and inclusive body and lay the
groundwork for a political transition. Importantly, they agreed
to continue to ratchet up the economic pressure through tough
sanctions on the Assad family and its supporters. The dialogue
in Tunis also included a robust dialogue about whether there is
a feasible way to help those that are under assault by the
Assad regime in order to defend themselves.
As the international community continues to search for an
avenue, there are a number of questions which we must ask about
the nature of the conflict in Syria: what is the makeup of the
Syrian opposition? How unified are they and would they be a
force for democracy and humane governance should they succeed?
What are the objectives of the opposition and who are their
benefactors? Is there a political entity, such as the Syrian
National Council, that is capable of uniting the small bands of
fighters across Syria and then coordinating the efforts of the
opposition groups against the Syrian military? Have violent
extremist elements infiltrated the opposition movement?
The military questions are, of course, equally important:
what are the military options available? What are the military
actions that could be taken and who would they need to be taken
by to maximize the chances of success, and what are the risks
and down sides to each option? These are just a few of the
questions that we hope to discuss with our witnesses this
morning.
Just as was the case with Libya, there is a broad consensus
among regional leaders and organizations on the preferred
outcome in Syria: Assad and his cronies must go. There is not,
however, a consensus about how this goal can be achieved. Each
situation is different. Unlike Qadhafi, who prevented the
formation of a capable and professional fighting force,
President Assad and his father before him built a substantial
and professional military with a modern air defense capability,
a large deadly stockpile of chemical weapons, and well-trained
troops. So far, this military establishment has remained mainly
cohesive and willing to carry out Assad's brutal order to
conduct a violent campaign against his people.
Some observers believe the uprising in Syria, which is led
by the Sunni majority, could aggravate sectarian tensions
beyond Syria's borders in a region already riven by religious
and ethnic divisions over power and territory. Syria is also
home to an ethnically and religiously diverse population that
includes minority Christian, Alawite, and Druze populations.
Some religious leaders are raising concerns about the situation
in Syria devolving to the point where there is little tolerance
for religious minorities, a situation all too familiar to us
following the invasion of Iraq.
We must also try to understand the impact of the conflict
in Syria on the region. Elements of Hezbollah and Hamas call
Syria home. Perhaps more importantly, it is Iran's sole ally in
the Arab world. Iran uses Syria and the terrorist organizations
it protects to carry out its destabilizing agenda in the
region. Syria is also home to a Russian naval installation,
Russia's only regular port of call in the Mediterranean. These
are but some aspects of the situation that need to be
considered as we develop a path forward.
Our witnesses have the responsibility to provide the
President options to address these challenges and to provide
him their best professional advice as to the pros and cons of
such options. As the committee heard from General Dempsey last
month, the Joint Staff has already begun the careful planning
necessary to support a full range of potential operations,
including, I'm sure, humanitarian airlifts, naval monitoring of
multilateral sanctions, aerial surveillance of the Syrian
military, and aerial enforcement of safe havens. We look
forward to discussing these options and many others with our
witnesses this morning.
We thank you both for being here this morning. We are
grateful for your steady leadership and we also appreciate your
very positive relationship with this committee and its members.
Senator McCain.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN McCAIN
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I join you in
welcoming our distinguished witnesses. Let me thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for convening today's hearing on the horrific
situation in Syria. The urgency of this hearing has only grown
more important over the past several weeks. It's estimated that
nearly 7,500 lives have been lost and many informed observers
even think that that figure could be low.
Syria today is the scene of some of the worst state-
sponsored violence since the Balkans. What is all the more
astonishing is that the violence continues despite the severe
international pressure that has been brought against Assad and
his regime. Syria is almost completely isolated diplomatically
and the regime is facing a punishing array of economic
sanctions imposed by the United States, the European Union
(EU), the Arab League, and others.
This has been an impressive international effort and the
administration deserves credit for helping to orchestrate it.
Unfortunately, the violence continues and, worse, it appears to
be escalating. Assad seems to be accelerating his fight to the
finish, and he's doing so with the active support thus far of
Russia, China, and Iran. A steady supply of weapons,
ammunition, and other assistance is flowing to Assad from
Moscow and Teheran and, as the Washington Post reported on
Sunday, Iranian military and intelligence operatives are likely
working in Syria to strengthen the regime's crackdown.
General Mattis testified to this committee yesterday that
``Assad is clearly achieving what he wants to achieve,'' that
Assad's military campaign is ``gaining physical momentum on the
battlefield,'' and that in General Mattis' opinion Assad will
``continue to employ heavier and heavier weapons on his
people.''
Similarly, General Ronald Burgess, the Director of the
Defense Intelligence Agency, and James Clapper, the Director of
National Intelligence, both told this committee recently that,
absent some kind of external intervention, Assad would likely
remain in power for the foreseeable future.
The United States has a clear national security interest in
stopping the slaughter in Syria and forcing Assad to leave
power. The end of the Assad regime could sever Hezbollah's
lifeline to Iran, eliminate a longstanding threat to Israel,
bolster Lebanon's sovereignty and independence, and remove a
committed state sponsor of terrorism that is engaged in the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It would be a
geopolitical success of the first order and, as General Mattis
told this committee yesterday, ``the biggest strategic setback
for Iran in 25 years.''
The President has made it an objective of the United States
that the killing in Syria must stop and that Assad must go. The
President has committed our prestige and our credibility to
that goal and it is the right goal. But the killing continues.
What opposition groups in Syria need most urgently is
relief from Assad's tank and artillery sieges in the many
cities that are still contested. But time is running out.
Assad's forces are on the march. Providing military assistance
to the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and other opposition groups is
necessary, but at this late hour that alone will not be
sufficient to stop the slaughter and save innocent lives.
The only realistic way to do so is with foreign air power,
which could break Assad's siege of contested cities in Syria,
protect key population centers, and help the opposition to
Assad on the ground to establish and defend safe havens in
Syria where they can organize and plan their political and
military activities against Assad.
At the request of the Syrian National Council, the FSA, and
local coordinating committees inside the country, the United
States should help to lead such a military effort in Syria.
But, as I have repeatedly said, this does not mean we should go
it alone. We should not. We should seek the active involvement
of key Arab partners such as Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, and
Qatar, and willing allies in the EU and the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO), the most important of which in this
case is Turkey.
Rather than closing off the prospects for a negotiated
transition that is acceptable to Syria's opposition, military
intervention is now needed to strengthen this option. Assad
needs to know that he will not win and, unfortunately, that is
not the case now.
To the contrary, Assad seems convinced that he can wipe out
the opposition through violence and is fully committed to doing
so. The ideal political outcome of military intervention would
be to change this dynamic, to prevent a long and bloody fight
to the finish by compelling Assad and his top lieutenants to
give up power without further bloodshed, thereby creating the
opportunity for a peaceful transition to democracy, possibly
along the lines proposed by the Arab League.
To be sure, there are legitimate questions about the
efficacy of military options in Syria and equally legitimate
concerns about their risks and uncertainties. It is
understandable that the administration is reluctant to move
beyond diplomacy and sanctions. Unfortunately, this policy is
increasingly disconnected from the dire conditions on the
ground in Syria, which has become a full state of armed
conflict.
Secretary Panetta, you were Chief of Staff to President
Clinton during much of the debate over Bosnia in the 1990s,
including the NATO bombing campaign. More than any of us,
perhaps, you remember the many painful years when the U.N. and
the EU kept sending envoys to Milosevic and the Bosnian Serbs
pleading with them to agree to reasonable requests, such as
lifting the siege of Sarajevo and allowing access to
humanitarian assistance. You also remember how the Serb leaders
cynically used these diplomatic entreaties to buy time to
continue their killing.
In Bosnia and later in Kosovo, we heard many arguments
against military intervention. It was said there was no
international consensus for action, that the situation on the
ground was messy and confused, that it was not clear who we
would actually be helping on the ground, and that our
involvement could actually make matters worse.
We heard all these arguments about Bosnia, Mr. Secretary,
and now we hear them about Syria again today. We overcame them
in Bosnia, thank God, and now we must overcome them in the case
of Syria.
I want to close by reading how President Clinton described
Bosnia in 1995: ``Nowhere today is the need for American
leadership more stark or more immediate than in Bosnia. For
nearly 4 years, a terrible war has torn Bosnia apart. Horrors
we prayed had been banished from Europe forever had been seared
into our minds again.''
President Clinton went on to say, ``There are times and
places where our leadership can mean the difference between
peace and war and where we can defend our fundamental values as
a people and serve our most basic strategic interests. There
are still times when America and America alone can and should
make the difference for peace.''
Those were the words of a Democratic President who led
America to do the right thing in helping stop mass atrocities
in the Balkans. I remember working with my Republican friend
and leader Bob Dole to support President Clinton in that
endeavor. The question for another Democratic President today
and for all of us in positions of leadership and responsibility
is whether we will allow similar mass atrocities to continue in
Syria or whether we will do what it takes to stop them.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator McCain.
Secretary Panetta.
STATEMENT OF HON. LEON E. PANETTA, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
Secretary Panetta. Chairman Levin and Senator McCain: Thank
you for the opportunity to be able to discuss with you the
ongoing violence in Syria. This tragedy has justifiably evoked
the concern and outrage of the U.S. Government, the American
people, and much of the world.
At the outset, I would like to stress that the President
and a broad cross-section of the international community have
stated unequivocally that Bashar Al-Assad must halt his
campaign of killing and crimes against his own people now. He
must step aside and he must allow a democratic transition to
proceed immediately. Furthermore, through its repeated
violations of human rights any government that indiscriminately
kills its own people loses its legitimacy. This regime has lost
its legitimacy and its right to rule the country.
This situation demands an international response and for
that reason the United States has been leading efforts within
the international community to pressure Assad to stop his
violence against the Syrian people and to step aside.
Unfortunately, this terrible situation has no simple answers,
and so the result is a great deal of anger and frustration that
we all share. There are some members who are concerned about
whether we are doing enough to stem the violence in Syria, and
that's understandable. There are others who are concerned about
the dangers of involving ourselves in still another conflict in
that part of the world, and that too is understandable.
Let me try and address these concerns by providing some
context for what is guiding the administration's views on Syria
and our actions in response to the violence. The turmoil in
Syria is clearly part of a larger transformation that has been
reshaping the Arab world for more than a year. The change we've
seen has manifested itself in different ways, sometimes through
peaceful protests and negotiations aimed at a more responsive
government, but also in other cases in violent uprisings and
brutal crackdowns from repressive regimes.
Many countries have been affected by these changes and,
although each conflict has its own dynamic, it is part of a
broader trend that is fundamentally and irreversibly reshaping
the politics of the Arab world. Although this is clearly a
challenging and unpredictable period of time, our goal must be
to encourage governments to do more to ensure that their people
can live in peace and prosperity.
As a global leader with a vital interest in the stability
of the broader Middle East, this administration has been
determined to do everything we can to positively shape the
course of events in the Middle East. But each situation by
virtue of the politics, geography, and history of each country
is unique and demands a unique response. There can be no
cookie-cutter approach for a region as complex and volatile as
the Middle East.
Nevertheless, from the outset we have made clear that our
response has been guided by three fundamental principles.
First, we oppose the use of violence and repression by regimes
against their own people. Second, we have supported the
exercise of universal rights--right to freedom of expression,
the right to peaceful assembly, the right to freedom of
thought, conscience, and religion, the prohibition against
discrimination, and the right to vote through genuine elections
that express the will of the electorate. Third, we support
political and economic reforms that can meet the legitimate
aspirations of ordinary people throughout the region. These
basic principles have shaped our response to Tunisia, to Egypt,
to Libya, and now Syria.
The violence there has become increasingly dire and
outrageous. As Secretary Clinton has noted, the Assad regime
has ignored every warning, squandered every opportunity, and
broken every agreement. We are forging an international
consensus that the Assad regime's brutality must end and that a
democratic transition in Syria must begin.
Although China and Russia have repeatedly blocked the U.N.
Security Council from taking action, the U.N. General Assembly
has given full support to the Arab League's transition plan,
delivering a clear message from the international community
that the Assad regime has lost its legitimacy, and there are
continuing efforts to try and agree on a Security Council
resolution as we speak.
The administration's focus now is on translating that
international consensus into action along four tracks. First,
we are working to increase the diplomatic and political
isolation of the Assad regime and encouraging other countries
to join the United States, the EU, and the Arab League in
imposing sanctions on the Assad regime. These sanctions are
having a significant impact.
Second, we are providing emergency humanitarian assistance
to the Syrian people, with an initial commitment of $10
million, and we are working to broaden our efforts at relief.
Third, we are working with the Friends of Syria and other
groups to help strengthen the opposition, to try to encourage
the various opposing groups to unify and lay a groundwork for a
peaceful, orderly transition to a democratic government, a
government that recognizes and respects the rights of all
Syrians, including minorities.
Fourth, we are reviewing all possible additional steps that
can be taken with our international partners to support the
efforts to protect the Syrian people, to end the violence and
ensure regional stability, including potential military
options, if necessary.
This approach has succeeded in putting unprecedented
pressure on Assad, but it is clear that there is no simple or
quick solution to this crisis. We believe that the best
resolution to this crisis will be a peaceful political,
democratic transition led by the Syrian people along the lines
suggested by the Arab League. We believe there's still an
opportunity to try to achieve that goal.
Although we will not rule out any future course of action,
currently the administration is focusing on diplomatic and
political approaches, rather than military intervention. Guided
by our approach from Libya and elsewhere, we believe it is
important in this instance that we do the following: that we
build multilateral international consensus for any action that
is taken; two, that we maintain clear regional support from the
Arab world; three, that we make substantial U.S. contributions
to the international effort, especially where the United States
has unique resources that can be brought to bear; four, we need
to have a clear legal basis for any action that we take; and
five, keep all options on the table, but recognize that there
are limitations of military force, especially with U.S. boots-
on-the-ground.
Each situation, as I said, is unique and, as I've said,
there is no simple solution here. The reasons for the
differences between our approach with Libya and the current
approach to Syria are clear. Although there has been widespread
support in the Security Council and the Arab League for
military intervention in Libya, no such consensus currently
exists with regards to Syria.
For us to act unilaterally would be a mistake. It is not
clear what constitutes the Syrian armed opposition. There has
been no single unifying military alternative that can be
recognized, appointed, or contacted. While the opposition is
fighting back and military defections and desertions are on the
rise, the Syrian regime continues to maintain a strong
military. As Secretary Clinton has noted, there is every
possibility of a civil war, and a direct outside intervention
in these conditions not only would not prevent that, but could
make it worse.
Even though our current approach is focused on achieving a
political solution to this crisis, the Assad regime should take
no comfort. The pressure is building on the regime every day,
and make no mistake, one way or another this regime will meet
its end. We will continue to evaluate the situation and we will
adjust our approach as necessary.
Let me close by briefly addressing the United States'
broader strategic interest in Syria and the region. The
stability of Syria is vital to this region and to Turkey,
Lebanon, Iraq, and Israel. All of these countries and the
United States have a strong interest in preventing a
humanitarian crisis in Syria. But perhaps most notably, Syria
is a pivotal country for Iran. As Senator McCain pointed out,
Syria is Iran's only state ally in the region and is crucial to
Iran's efforts to support those militants throughout the region
who threaten Israel and threaten regional stability.
Unrest in Syria has already greatly weakened Iran's
position in the region and it is clear that Iran only stands to
lose further as Assad is weakened further. As groups such as
Hamas distance themselves from the Assad regime, Iran is
quickly becoming the Assad regime's lone backer. This shows the
world the hypocrisy of Teheran.
I cannot predict how this volatile situation in Syria will
unfold, but the United States has made clear that we are on the
side of the Syrian people. They must know that the
international community has not underestimated either their
suffering or their impatience. We all wish there was a clear
and unambiguous way forward to directly influence the events in
Syria. That unfortunately is not the case. That is not an
excuse; that is reality.
Our only clear path is to keep moving in a resolute,
determined, but deliberate, manner with the international
community to find a way to return Syria to the Syrian people.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Panetta follows:]
Prepared Statement by Hon. Leon E. Panetta
Chairman Levin, Senator McCain. Thank you for calling this hearing
to discuss the ongoing violence in Syria, which has justifiably evoked
the concern and outrage of the U.S. Government, the American people,
and much of the world.
At the outset, I would like to stress that President Obama has
stated unequivocally that Bashar al-Assad must halt his campaign of
killing and crimes against his own people now. He must step aside and
allow a democratic transition to proceed immediately. Furthermore,
through its repeated violations of human rights, the regime has lost
its legitimacy, and its right to rule the country. This situation
demands an international response, and for that reason the United
States has been leading efforts within the international community to
pressure Assad to stop his violence against the Syrian people and step
aside.
I know that there are some members who are concerned about whether
we are doing enough to stem the violence in Syria and that is
understandable. There are others who are concerned about the dangers of
involving ourselves in still another conflict in this part of the world
and that too is understandable.
Let me address these concerns by providing some context for what is
guiding the administration's views on Syria and our actions in response
to the violence.
The turmoil in Syria is clearly part of a larger transformation
that has been reshaping the Arab world for more than a year. The change
we've seen manifests itself through peaceful protests and negotiations
aimed at more responsive governments in some cases, but also in violent
uprisings and brutal crackdowns from repressive regimes in other cases.
Many countries have been affected by these changes. Although each
situation has been unique, it is part of a broader trend that is
fundamentally and irreversibly reshaping the politics of the Arab
world.
Although this is clearly a challenging and unpredictable period of
time, our goal must be governments that will do more to ensure that
their people live in peace and prosperity.
As a global leader with a vital interest in the stability of the
broader Middle East, this administration has been determined to do
everything we can to positively shape the course of events in the
Middle East. Each situation--by virtue of the politics, geography, and
history of each country--is unique, and demands a unique response.
There can be no cookie cutter approach for a region as complex and
volatile as the Middle East.
Nevertheless, from the outset, we have made clear that our response
has been guided by three fundamental principles:
First, we oppose the use of violence and repression by
regimes against their own people;
Second, we have supported the exercise of universal
human rights--which include the right to freedom of expression,
the right of peaceful assembly, the right to freedom of
thought, conscience and religion, the prohibition against
discrimination, and the right to vote through genuine elections
that express the will of the electorate, and;
Third, we support political and economic reforms that
can meet the legitimate aspirations of ordinary people
throughout the region.
These basic principles have shaped our response to Tunisia, Egypt,
Libya, and now Syria. The violence there has become increasingly dire
and outrageous. As Secretary Clinton has noted, the Assad regime has
ignored every warning, squandered every opportunity, and broken every
agreement. We are forging an international consensus that the Assad
regime's brutality must end and that a democratic transition in Syria
must begin. Although China and Russia have repeatedly blocked the UN
Security Council from taking action, the U.N. General Assembly has
given full support to the Arab League's transition plan--delivering a
clear message from the international community that the Assad regime
has lost its legitimacy.
The administration's focus now is on translating that international
consensus into action, along four tracks:
First, we are working to increase the diplomatic and
political isolation of the Assad regime--and encouraging other
countries to join the United States, European Union, and Arab
League in imposing sanctions on the Assad regime;
Second, we are providing emergency humanitarian
assistance to the Syrian people, with an initial commitment of
$10 million;
Third, we are working with the Friends of Syria and
other groups to help strengthen the opposition, encouraging it
to unify and lay the groundwork for a peaceful, orderly
transition to a democratic government that recognizes and
respects the rights of all Syrians, including minorities; and
Fourth, we are reviewing all possible additional steps
that can be taken with our international partners to support
efforts to protect the Syrian people, end the violence, and
ensure regional stability, including potential military options
if necessary.
This approach has succeeded in putting unprecedented pressure on
Assad, but it is clear that there is no simple or quick solution to
this crisis. We believe that the best resolution to this crisis will be
a peaceful, political, democratic transition led by the Syrian people
and along the lines suggested by the Arab League. We believe there is
still an opportunity to achieve that goal.
Although we will not rule out any future course of action,
currently the administration is focusing on diplomatic and political
approaches rather than a military intervention. Guided by our approach
from Libya and elsewhere, we believe it is important in this instance
that we:
Build multi-lateral, international consensus for any
action taken;
Maintain clear regional support from the Arab world;
Make substantial U.S. contributions to the
international effort, especially where the United States has
unique resources that can be brought to bear;
Have a clear legal basis for any action; and
Keep all options on the table, but recognize the
limitation of military force, especially U.S. boots-on-the-
ground.
However, each situation is unique and there is no simple solution
to the situation in Syria. The reasons for a different approach between
our approach with Libya and current approach to Syria are clear:
Although there was widespread support in the Security
Council and the Arab League for military intervention in Libya,
no such consensus currently exists regarding Syria;
It is not clear what constitutes the Syrian armed
opposition--there has been no single unifying military
alternative that can be recognized, appointed, or contacted.
While the opposition is fighting back and military defections
and desertions are on the rise, the Syrian regime continues to
maintain a strong military. For us to act unilaterally would be
a mistake;
As Secretary Clinton has noted, there is every
possibility of a civil war, and an outside intervention in
these conditions would not prevent that, but could expedite it
and make it worse.
Even though our current approach is focused on achieving a
political solution to this crisis, the Assad regime should take no
comfort. The pressure is building on the regime every day. Make no
mistake--one way or another, this regime will meet its end. We will
continue to evaluate the situation and adjust our approach as
necessary.
Let me close by briefly addressing the United States' broader
strategic interests in Syria and the region. The stability of Syria is
vital to the region--and to Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq, and Israel. All of
these countries and the United States have a strong interest in
preventing a humanitarian crisis in Syria.
But perhaps most notably, Syria is a pivotal country for Iran.
Syria is Iran's only state ally in the region, and is crucial to Iran's
efforts to support those militants throughout the region who threaten
Israel and regional stability. Unrest in Syria has already greatly
weakened Iran's position in the region, and it is clear that Iran only
stands to lose further as Assad is weakened further. As groups such as
Hamas distance themselves from the Assad regime, Iran is quickly
becoming the Assad regime's lone backer. This shows the world the
hypocrisy of Tehran.
I cannot predict how this volatile situation in Sryia will unfold,
but the United States has made clear that we are on the side of the
Syrian people. They must know that the international community has not
underestimated either their suffering or their impatience. We all wish
there was a clear and unambiguous way forward to directly influence the
events in Syria. That unfortunately is not the case. That is not a
excuse--that is the reality. Our only clear path is to keep moving in a
resolute, determined but deliberate manner with the international
community to find a way to return Syria to the Syrian people.
Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
General Dempsey.
STATEMENT OF GEN MARTIN E. DEMPSEY, USA, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS
OF STAFF
General Dempsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain,
distinguished members of the committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to meet with you today and discuss the evolving
situation in Syria. The situation is tragic for the people of
Syria and for the region. Real democratic reform should have
been the Assad regime's response to last year's peaceful
protests. Instead, the regime responded with brutality.
Syria's internal convulsions are having consequences for a
region already in turmoil. Refugees are fleeing. Spillover into
neighboring countries is an increasing concern. We also need to
be alert to the movement of extremists and other hostile actors
seeking to exploit this situation. We need to be especially
alert to the fate of Syria's chemical and biological weapons.
They must stay exactly where they are.
With other conscientious nations, the United States is
applying diplomatic and economic pressure on the regime to
compel Assad and his accomplices to stop killing their own. Our
military's role has been limited to this point to sharing
information with our regional partners. But should we be called
on to help secure U.S. interests in other ways, we will be
ready. We maintain an agile regional and global posture. We
have solid military relationships with every country on Syria's
borders.
Should we be called, our responsibility is clear: Provide
the Secretary of Defense and the President of the United States
with options. All options will be judged in terms of their
suitability, their feasibility, and their acceptability. We
have a further responsibility to articulate risk and the
potential implications for our other global commitments.
In closing, I want to assure this committee, you, and the
Nation that America's Armed Forces are always ready to answer
our Nation's call. I am prepared to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Dempsey follows:]
Prepared Statement by GEN Martin E. Dempsey, USA
Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, and distinguished members of the
committee, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss with you the
evolving situation in Syria.
The situation is tragic--for the people of Syria and for the
region. Real democratic reform should have been the Assad regime's
response to last year's peaceful protests. Instead, the regime
responded with brutality. When ordinary Syrians tried to defend their
homes, the regime opened up with an arsenal of heavy weapons. When the
Arab League acted to end the bloodshed, Damascus actually escalated the
violence.
The Syrian people are suffering. These internal convulsions are
having consequences for a region already in turmoil. Refugees are
fleeing. Spillover into neighboring countries--each one a partner or
ally of ours--is an increasing concern.
We also need to be alert to extremists--who may return to well-trod
ratlines running through Damascus--and other hostile actors--including
Iran--which has been exploiting the situation and expanding its support
to the regime. We need to be especially alert to the fate of Syria's
chemical and biological weapons. They need to stay exactly where they
are.
The regime's brutality has catalyzed a growing international
consensus to compel Assad and his accomplices to stop killing their
own. With other conscientious nations, the United States is applying
diplomatic and economic pressure on the regime, supporting the
opposition, and providing humanitarian assistance.
Our military's role has been limited to sharing information with
our regional partners--each one very capable in its own right.
Should the Armed Forces of the United States be called on to help
secure U.S. interests in other ways, we will be ready. We maintain an
agile regional and global posture. We have solid military relationships
with every country on Syria's border. We know how to integrate our
unique capabilities with others.
Should we be called, our responsibility is clear--provide the
Secretary of Defense and the President with options. This is what the
Nation expects of us.
Any potential option needs to be judged in terms of several
criteria. One is suitability--whether the actions will help produce the
intended outcome. Another is feasibility--whether we can accomplish the
mission with the time and resources available. We will also consider
its acceptability--whether the action is worth the cost and is
consistent with law.
We have a further responsibility to articulate risk. All options
require us to take some risk--time and capacity have limits. All
options also come with unintended consequences. We can anticipate some,
but many we cannot. Therefore, we need to be clear-eyed about the
potential implications for our other global responsibilities.
In closing, I want to assure you and the Nation. America's Armed
Forces are always ready to answer our Nation's call.
I look forward to your questions.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, General.
Let's try 7-minute rounds for questions.
Secretary Panetta, the Arab League has proposed a
transition plan. Has the Arab League requested military
intervention in Syria?
Secretary Panetta. It has not.
Chairman Levin. Did they support military intervention in
Libya?
Secretary Panetta. They did.
Chairman Levin. What explains the difference?
Secretary Panetta. I think they share some of the same
concerns that we do with regards to the situation in Syria and
just exactly what kind of military action would have the kind
of impact that we all desire. Because of the divisions within
the opposition, because of the situation that is occurring
there and it's volatile and unpredictable, I think that those
concerns have impacted on their decisionmaking here.
Chairman Levin. General Dempsey, you've made reference to
putting together options for the President should he decide to
move in one direction or another. Without telling us what you
would recommend, can you give us a menu of military options
which might be available?
General Dempsey. Yes, I can actually discuss them in
greater detail in closed session if you choose to do that. But
you mentioned the principal options in your opening statement,
which would include humanitarian relief, no-fly zone, maritime
interdiction, humanitarian corridor, and limited aerial
strikes, for example.
We're at what I would describe the commander's estimate
level of detail, not detailed planning; have not been briefed
to the President, have been discussed with the President's
National Security staff, and, as General Mattis testified
yesterday, the next step would be to take whatever options we
deem to be feasible into the next level of planning.
Chairman Levin. Would the use of air power against their
troops be an option? Tell us about the air defenses that Syria
has?
General Dempsey. First of all, we're extraordinarily
capable and we can do just about anything we're asked to do. In
doing it, we have some considerations that we would make in
terms of whether we would do it alone or with partners, as
Senator McCain said clearly. We generally, in fact always,
provide a better outcome and a more enduring outcome when we
work with partners, especially in that part of the world.
The ability to do a single raid-like strike would be
accessible to us. The ability to do a longer-term sustained
campaign would be challenging and would have to be made in the
context of other commitments around the globe. I'll just say
this about their air defenses: they have--and again, I can
speak more openly in a closed session about their exact
capabilities, approximately five times more sophisticated air
defense systems than existed in Libya, covering one-fifth of
the terrain. All of their air defenses are arrayed on their
western border, which is their population center. So 5 times
the air defense of Libya, covering one-fifth of the terrain,
and about 10 times more than we experienced in Serbia.
Chairman Levin. Has NATO taken up the issue of some kind of
an intervention militarily in Syria?
Secretary Panetta. Not at this point.
Chairman Levin. Would it not be useful as a either
preliminary consideration or as an important signal to the
Libyan regime that at least NATO take up the question?
Secretary Panetta. I believe that NATO ought to take up the
question.
Chairman Levin. Can you make sure that that happens, or
recommend at least to the President that that be done?
Secretary Panetta. Yes.
Chairman Levin. I think that would be an important signal
to the Syrian regime.
General Mattis recently indicated to the committee that
President Assad's regime is going to fall, and he said it's
just a matter of when and not if. Do you share that assessment
and are you as confident that that will happen, and do you
attach any conditions to that happening? Secretary, let me
start with you.
Secretary Panetta. I've heard the intelligence and I share
the assessment that it isn't a matter of if he'll fall, but
when.
Chairman Levin. Is that dependent on our actions or other
actions against him, or is that going to happen even with the
current momentum and the current status quo continuing?
Secretary Panetta. I've asked the same question of our
Intelligence Community and I think their view is that the state
of this insurgency is so deep right now and will continue into
the future that ultimately he will fall one way or the other.
Chairman Levin. General, can you tell us what capabilities
there are to get additional weapons to the insurgents or the
opposition, and also tell us what weapons Assad is getting and
from what source? If you can try to give us as best you can the
type of weapons that could be provided to the opposition and
what weapons are actually going into Assad and from where?
General Dempsey. I can't speak in open session about the
source of his weapons, except to say that he has some security
arrangements with others, both in the region and outside the
region, to provide weapons, what we would describe in our
situation as a foreign military sales (FMS) program. He has an
existing FMS agreement with at least two nations, that I can
discuss in closed session.
Chairman Levin. Are you able to tell us what Iran is
supplying?
General Dempsey. I can in closed session.
Chairman Levin. Could you give us some idea in open
session? In other words, are you able to give us, if not
precisely, can you give us just some general estimate or idea
as to what's going in from Iran, types of weapons and quantity,
without being too precise?
General Dempsey. If Iran succeeds in some of their
movements of weapons to Syria, and they have, then it would be
largely smaller caliber rocket-propelled grenades, anti-tank
weapons.
The other actors who have open FMS agreements are generally
upper-tier stuff, including air defense.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Thank you both.
Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. General Dempsey, are the reports in the
Washington Post accurate about Iranian involvement? We don't
need a closed session, I don't think, for you to say whether
the Washington Post is correct or not.
General Dempsey. Parts of the Washington Post reports are
accurate, yes, Senator.
Senator McCain. Thank you.
Secretary, General Mattis testified before the committee
yesterday that the departure of Assad from power, as you
stated, would be the ``biggest strategic setback for Iran in 25
years.'' You're basically in agreement with that statement?
Secretary Panetta. I agree with that.
Senator McCain. By the way, the Kuwaiti parliament has
called for arming the opposition. The Saudi foreign minister
called for it. Other elements of the Arab League are calling
for it. Clearly, it's just a matter of time before the Arab
League takes a stronger position on it.
General Mattis told us, General Dempsey, yesterday that
Assad's crackdown is ``gaining physical momentum.'' Do you
agree with General Mattis' statement?
General Dempsey. I do. He has increasingly used heavier
weapons.
Senator McCain. So even though you agree that sooner or
later Assad will fall, at the moment he happens to be,
including regaining control of Homs, gaining momentum; is that
correct?
General Dempsey. That is correct.
Senator McCain. So would you characterize this as a fair
fight, when he's using artillery and tanks to kill Syrians?
General Dempsey. I would characterize the Assad regime as
brutalizing their own citizens.
Senator McCain. I see. But since sooner or later he will
fall, we don't have to act?
The President said yesterday he has taken no options off
the table. Mr. Panetta, in the case of Syria you said in your
opening statement that includes ``potential military options if
necessary.'' Yet, Admiral Stavridis and General Mattis stated
that there had been no contingency planning either in NATO or
U.S. Central Command. Will there be some contingency planning?
Secretary Panetta. We have looked at a number of options
that could be involved here.
Senator McCain. But will there be contingency planning?
Secretary Panetta. We have not done the detailed planning
because we are waiting for the direction of the President to do
that.
Senator McCain. Mr. Secretary, President Obama issued a
presidential directive stating: ``The prevention of mass
atrocities is a core national security interest of the United
States.'' That's the administration's policy. With at least
7,500 and possibly more than 10,000 dead, with Assad using
tanks, ``gaining momentum'' according to General Mattis, would
you agree that mass atrocities have occurred and are occurring
in Syria?
Secretary Panetta. I don't think there's any question that
we're experiencing mass atrocities there.
Senator McCain. So the President said yesterday he's taken
no options off the table, and you said in your opening
statement that includes, as I mentioned, potential military
options, if necessary. Can you tell us how much longer the
killing would have to continue, how many additional civilian
lives would have to be lost, in order to convince you that
military measures of this kind that we are proposing necessary
to end the killing and force to leave power, how many more have
to die? 10,000 more? 20,000 more? How many more?
Secretary Panetta. I think the question, as you stated
yourself, Senator, is the effort to try to build an
international consensus as to what action we do take. That
makes the most sense. What doesn't make sense is to take
unilateral action at this point.
As Secretary of Defense, before I recommend that we put our
sons and daughters in uniform in harm's way, I have to make
very sure that we know what the mission is. I have to make very
sure that we know whether we can achieve that mission, at what
price, and whether or not it will make matters better or worse.
Those are the considerations that I have to engage in, and
obviously the administration believes that every effort ought
to be made to deal with those concerns in the international
setting to try to build the kind of international consensus
that worked in Libya and that can work in Syria if we can
develop that.
Senator McCain. Let me tell you what's wrong with your
statement. You don't mention American leadership. Americans
should lead in this. America should be standing up. America
should be building coalitions. We shouldn't have statements
like that we are not going to intervene no matter what the
situation is. Such has been, at least up until now, the
statements by the administration and the President.
In past experiences, those that I mentioned before, America
has led. Yes, it has been multilateral and multinational, as is
absolutely vital. We're not leading, Mr. Secretary.
General Dempsey, again I hear the same old refrain that
I've heard for many, many years: ``It's not clear what
constitutes the Syrian armed opposition.'' That was the same
argument that this administration used for not intervening in
Libya at the beginning.
By the way, I might add that the prime minister and deputy
prime minister of Libya are former professors at the University
of Alabama, far better than being from Senator Lieberman's alma
mater. But anyway. [Laughter.]
We can find out who they are. They're not fighting and
dying because they're al Qaeda. They're not fighting and dying
and sacrificing their lives because they're Muslim extremists.
They're fighting and dying because they want the same universal
rights and freedom that we are guaranteed in our Constitution.
So I reject the argument that we ``don't know who they
are.'' We spend a lot of money on defense and we spend a lot of
money on intelligence. We should know who these people are and
it would be easy enough to find out. The best way, of course,
to help them organize is to provide them with a safe haven
where they can organize and train and equip.
I was interested in your answer, and I'll conclude with
this, that sooner or later Assad will fall. I don't disagree
with that. In the meantime, he's gaining momentum. He's
regained Homs. The death count goes up and the atrocities
continue.
Yet the President says a core national security interest of
the United States is the prevention of mass atrocities. Mass
atrocities are going on. I would hope that America could lead
and exercise the options necessary to stop these atrocities, as
has been the actions of the United States of America in the
past in both Republican and Democratic administrations.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator McCain.
Senator Lieberman.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks to Secretary Panetta, General Dempsey. On this
question of what to do in Syria, I'm of like mind with Senator
McCain, except on the unfortunate reference to the brave
graduates of Yale University. I'll have to talk to him later
about that. [Laughter.]
Perhaps we are of like mind because we went through in the
1990s together similar circumstances in Bosnia and Kosovo.
Secretary Panetta, certainly in Bosnia you were there in the
White House. In each case, the American entrance into that
conflict was late, but had a very constructive effect and a
civil war was terminated.
In my opinion, the humanitarian and strategic arguments for
the United States to be involved, to help lead an international
effort which is military to stop the slaughter in Syria are
actually greater than they were in the case of either Bosnia or
Kosovo. As great as those were, there obviously is the
humanitarian crisis, which is that, as we've all agreed, Assad
is slaughtering his people. He has them out-gunned and for all
we know he'll keep doing it and not leave office until he's
worn them down.
Beyond that are all the strategic reasons that I think we
also agree on, which is how positive it would be if Assad,
who's the only ally of Iran, at this critical moment is taken
down, how liberating it would be to the Lebanese people next
door, who have suffered under Syrian repression.
There's another element to this, too, which perhaps is so
unique and different that we're not giving it enough weight. In
our foreign policy, we've done a lot of things over the years,
including in recent years, to try to essentially regain the
confidence of the Arab world, of the Muslim world. We have here
a moment where the Arab League, the Gulf Coordinating Council,
Turkey, are out there--I know Turkey's not the Arab world, but
in the region--against what's happening in Syria. I think if we
seem to be holding back--and incidentally, I think those
countries are out there both because they see their own
strategic interest in this, but also because their people are
demanding it, because of the wave of change sweeping across the
region.
So to me this is both humanitarian, strategic in terms of
its negative effect on Iran if we can help bring Assad down,
but also can help improve our relations with not just our
allies in the Arab world, but the so-called Arab street. When
I've been to Libya, as an example, the United States and NATO
are naturally extremely popular and there's a lot of
appreciation for them because in their hour of need we were
there. I hope and pray that we can come to do that again with
regard to Syria.
I agree this is not something we should do alone. But the
truth is without American leadership helping to organize this
coalition and being prepared, as you've suggested, to provide
some of the critical resources that we have, it won't happen in
a timely way and it won't be successful.
I want to say very briefly, to me, I have kept saying that
the factors that led us into Libya with an international
coalition are here. They're happening. We worried about mostly,
about a humanitarian disaster. They're here.
But, Secretary Panetta, you've cited a few reasons why
Syria is different from Libya and, respectfully, I want to
offer a different view. One is that there was widespread
support in the Security Council and the Arab League for
military intervention in Libya. No such consensus exists
regarding Syria. That's literally true, and that's particularly
because of Russia and China and what they're doing in the U.N.
But within the Arab League there's clearly a lot of interest in
a military intervention in Syria. The same is true of the Gulf
Coordinating Council. I take it that the Saudis and Qataris are
thinking of beginning to arm the Syrian opposition as well.
The other thing I want to say is that in Kosovo, as we all
remember, the U.S. with a coalition of the willing acted
without U.N. Security Council approval because again there were
one or two nations blocking it. So that shouldn't stop us from
acting.
The second concern is that we hear all the time the Syrian
armed opposition is--we're not sure who they are, they have no
single coordinating person at the top or group at the top.
Again, I agree, but that was true in Libya as well. The
militias that formed in different parts of the country were not
connected. In some sense they were hostile to one another. You
can see that playing out in some ways in Libya today.
But when the international community came in it gave
strength--with military assistance, to the Transitional
National Council there and they worked together with our
assistance to bring about the change that occurred.
Finally, the statement that military intervention would not
prevent civil war, but could expedite it. I know Secretary
Clinton said something to that effect. Obviously, there is a
civil war going on now, and recent history shows that foreign
military intervention in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Libya has
actually, Libya most recently, been critical in ending civil
wars in those countries and the absence of foreign military
intervention in countries like Rwanda, the Congo, Somalia, and
others has doomed those countries to suffer through extended
civil wars.
I think the clock is running. People are being killed in
great numbers every day. I think if we don't get the
international community together in a coalition of the willing
soon, we're going to look back and say we not only didn't do
the right thing morally to stop innocents from being killed, we
missed an extraordinary strategic opportunity to strengthen our
position and the position of free people in the Middle East.
I want to give you an opportunity to respond if you will,
without asking a specific question.
Secretary Panetta. Senator, I want to make the point that
the concerns that Senator McCain and you and others have
expressed are exactly the concerns of the administration. We're
not divided here and we are not holding back. This
administration has led in Iraq, we've led in Afghanistan, we've
led in the war on terrorism, we led in Libya, and we're leading
in Syria. We are working with those elements to try to bring
them together.
If the agreement here is that we ought not to just simply
go in unilaterally, then we have to build a multilateral
coalition. We have to be able to work at that. It's not that
easy to deal with some of the concerns that are out there. But
nevertheless we're working at it. Secretary Clinton is working
at it every day. There are diplomats that are engaged on this
issue. We are trying to engage with NATO. We are trying to
engage with these other countries. There are other countries
that are interested in trying to provide provisions. We are
working with them, we are talking with them. We are looking at
every option to try to put that in place.
Can it happen today? Can it happen now? No. It's going to
take some work. It's going to take some time. But when we do it
we'll do it right. We will not do it in a way that will make
the situation worse. That's what we have to be careful of.
Senator Lieberman. I thank you for the statement. I'm
encouraged by it, and all I can do is plead with you and other
nations that we're reaching out to to move as quickly as
possible, because people are dying every day and strategic
opportunities are being lost.
The fact is that we have an opportunity here and it's also
a responsibility, and I think it's critically important that we
exercise it.
I'd say finally that I know some people continue to hope
that a way can be found for President Assad to leave the
country and usher in the democratic process of transformation
that we've talked about. From everything I hear, everything I
see, he will only do that if he thinks his life, his regime, is
really in jeopardy. Right now, I think he thinks he's dominant
and has the kind of momentum, physical momentum, that General
Dempsey spoke about today.
So the sooner we put international military pressure on the
Assad regime, the sooner we have a chance to end this
peacefully.
Thank you.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Lieberman.
Senator Brown.
Senator Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, you said we're leading in Iraq, Afghanistan.
I don't disagree with that. Leading in Syria, I haven't really
seen it yet, and maybe that's because we're not privy to the
information you are.
I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, based on some of the
intelligence that we would need to make those determinations,
that we set up a secure briefing so we can better understand
the intricacies of what's happening, because right now I agree
with everything, surprisingly, that Senator Lieberman said, and
that is, I think, very important. It was very well said about
we're missing a potential opportunity.
That being said also, I'd like to shift to General Dempsey.
We know that Syria has substantial chemical and biological
weapons stockpiles. We also know that the regime will
eventually collapse. That seems to be the general consensus. Is
there a plan available to address that weaponry and do we have
an elimination plan of any kind set up?
General Dempsey. Senator, I would very much like the chance
to talk with you about it, but not in an open hearing. But I'll
give you the magnitude: 100 times more than we experienced in
Libya.
Senator Brown. Great. Thank you. I would like that
opportunity to get that briefing, once again.
Sir, based on what you saw in Libya, what are some of the
lessons that we learned, that we need to apply to any
thoughtful consideration of military intervention in Syria?
Because ultimately, I recognize everyone basically hated
Qadhafi. They wanted to get him out. We had the Arab League. We
had a broad coalition. I know the U.N. problems that we're
having.
But I recognize what Senator Lieberman and Senator McCain
said, that we do have a lot of thoughtful, concerned partners
in that part of the region that want to step up. Is there a
chance we would move without the U.N. and just with those
partners to take advantage of that leadership role that we
should have?
General Dempsey. My job, Senator, is to place military
options in context. So when you asked me about lessons learned
that are transferable from Libya to Syria, sure, there are some
tactically for sure: how to enable indigenous forces on the
ground without boots-on-the-ground.
But I very much want to elevate our thinking here about
this. We're talking about Syria, but we're looking at it
through a soda straw. It doesn't exist as an individual,
isolated country. It's in the context of the region. It's in
the context even of actors outside the region. The inside of
Syria is a far different demographic, ethnic, religious mix
than it was in Libya. We need to understand that before we seek
to use a particular template to solve the challenges they face.
It's not just about the military. The Secretary and I
happen to be the face of the military, but this issue has to be
dealt with in context and we're looking at it through a soda
straw.
Senator Brown. Mr. Secretary, who aside from the United
States do you think is in the best position right now to exert
the most effective pressure on the Assad regime?
Secretary Panetta. There's no question in my mind that
Russia could play a very significant role in putting pressure
on Assad. They have a port there. They have influence there.
They have dealings there. Unfortunately, the position they've
taken in the U.N. was to oppose the resolution, and that's a
shame.
But there's no question that they and the Chinese, if they
wanted to advance the cause of the Syrian people, they could
bring great pressure on them to do the right thing.
Senator Brown. I'm presuming Secretary Clinton is working
and reaching out?
Secretary Panetta. That's correct.
Senator Brown. Thank you.
I'm all set, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Brown.
Senator Reed is not here. Senator Nelson is next.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, for your distinguished service.
It's been reported that al Qaeda leader Ayman Zawahiri and
other violent extremists have called on members of their group
to support the uprising in Syria. General Mattis before the
committee yesterday stated that there is already evidence that
the terrorist network is involved in supporting the opposition.
Do we have an idea regarding the number of violent
extremists that are engaged in the uprising, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Panetta. We do, but I would prefer to discuss
that in closed session.
Senator Nelson. I understand. But we do have an idea, so
it's not that we don't have the intelligence.
Secretary Panetta. We have intelligence.
Senator Nelson. We have the intelligence. Do we have an
idea of what sort of outside assistance they're getting as
well? You don't have to tell me what it is necessarily.
Secretary Panetta. That's correct.
Senator Nelson. Do we have some idea of what Iran is
providing in the way of outside assistance?
Secretary Panetta. That's correct.
Senator Nelson. To the level of detail that we need to
have?
Secretary Panetta. As a former Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency, I would like a lot better detail.
Senator Nelson. Always one more detail. I understand that,
of course, yes.
If the decision to arm the Syrian opposition force is
predicated on defining the force, how long do you think it
might take us to be able to have that definition of the force
if a decision is made on a multinational basis to engage in
arming that force internally?
General Dempsey. Again, in open session I'll say there's
approximately 100 groups that we've identified as part of the
opposition, rough numbers.
Senator Nelson. Some of them aren't necessarily terrorist
organizations?
General Dempsey. No, no. In fact, we can go into that more
in closed session as well, but we're not suggesting that that
part of al Qaeda that has made its way to Syria has aligned
itself or is in bed with the opposition. But they're there
trying to exploit it, and so that's a factor that we have to
consider.
Of those groups, to your question about how long would it
take us if we chose to do something through the opposition, the
question would be not how quickly we could, let's say, vet them
all, but how quickly we could vet enough of them that could
form some kind of coherent core. But it doesn't exist today.
Despite our aspirations and hopes that it would, it doesn't
exist.
Senator Nelson. It hasn't occurred yet, but it could occur
on its own, but there is some concern about it getting worse
before it gets better, more people dying in the interim. So
obviously time is of the essence in trying to get international
interest in this, given the fact that we have two of the
largest countries in the world not supporting our efforts.
If we made the decision and we have a multinational force
and we have 100 groups to go through, how reasonable do you
think it is that you'll get a coalescence of those groups? Will
providing the arms and providing support, if we don't put
boots-on-the-ground, that that coalescence will occur? Do we
think that it will happen that way, or will they be just
disparate and devolve into some sort of a civil war?
Secretary Panetta. Senator, I really wish we could predict
that. But it's dangerous to do that. We faced somewhat the same
situation in Libya. In heading up the intelligence operation
there, it was one of the first orders of business, was to try
to figure out who the opposition was and where they were
located and what they were doing, what kind of coordination
they have.
Here you have triple the problem because there are so many
diverse groups that are involved. Whether or not they can find
that one leader, whether they can find that one effort to try
to bring them together in some kind of council, there are
efforts to try to make that happen, but frankly they have not
been successful.
Senator Nelson. Are we in a position where we have plans in
place in the event that we engage in Syria to some extent or
another to deal with the potential of the chemical weapons that
they currently have?
Secretary Panetta. I think, as General Dempsey has pointed
out, that is clearly one of our great concerns and we have
developed options to try to address those concerns.
General Dempsey. If I could reinforce, if you think it's a
concern of ours, you can imagine the concern it is of Syria's
neighbors. So we are in consultation with them about that
challenge.
Senator Nelson. What are the chances of neighbors in the
region working with us--perhaps they are--to get multinational
interest in this?
Secretary Panetta. There are efforts to try to engage the
neighbors with regards to the issues in Syria, and the
neighbors clearly share the concerns that we all have with
regards to the situation there. Two neighbors are being
directly impacted by refugee problems, both in Turkey and
Jordan. We're engaging with both of them. We're engaging with
others to try to see what we can do to try to build at least a
coalition of those countries to try to engage with regards to
some of the issues there.
Senator Nelson. In our efforts to do that do we think that
they're getting sufficiently motivated and sufficiently
concerned to engage in some joint effort with their neighbor,
Syria?
Secretary Panetta. There is great concern, and they're
experiencing directly the concern, not only from the refugees,
but from the fallout of what's going on in Syria. They too are
concerned about what ultimately happens there when Assad is
removed or steps aside, what are going to be the consequences
within Syria itself, because that could have a huge impact on
them as well.
Senator Nelson. Thank you both and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Nelson.
Senator Ayotte.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Secretary Panetta. Thank you, General Dempsey.
I would like to ask about the role of China and Russia
here. Let me just say upfront--I'm sure you'll agree--that it's
outrageous that China and Russia blocked the U.N. resolutions,
both of them, also most recently in February. As I understand
it, according to the Center for Strategic and International
Studies report that was issued in June 2010, the arms imports
from Russia to Syria between 1997 and 2008, that Russia's been
a leading arms supplier to the Assad regime. Is that the case?
Secretary Panetta. That's true.
Senator Ayotte. Do they continue to provide arms to the
Assad regime now?
General Dempsey. Yes, Senator, they do.
Senator Ayotte. So Russia is continuing to provide arms to
the Assad regime as they murder their own people?
General Dempsey. They have a longstanding FMS relationship
with them and it continues on unabated.
Senator Ayotte. It doesn't seem to matter to Russia at all
that they are using these arms to murder their own people. It's
outrageous.
As I understand it, China has also provided in the past
arms to the Assad regime as well, to a lesser extent.
Secretary Panetta. Let me get back to you, because there
are other areas of assistance, but I'm not sure about arms.
Senator Ayotte. Okay. I would appreciate a follow-up to
that.
[The information referred to follows:]
During the past 8 years, China has been the second largest arms
supplier to the Syrian military; however, its arms trade with Syria
lags far behind Russian sales to Damascus.
Senator Ayotte. They certainly to some extent have provided
assistance to the Assad regime in the past. Do we know if
they're providing any assistance now of any type?
General Dempsey. No, I haven't been tracking intelligence
on China's role in arms sales, Iran, and you noted Russia, from
the report.
Secretary Panetta. But I think economically they have had
ties into Syria that they still are trying to maintain.
Senator Ayotte. Is it not true also that, with respect to
our posture with Iran in terms of wanting to impose the
toughest economic sanctions possible to ensure that Iran does
not develop nuclear weapons capability, that Russia and China
are a key to that, because we know that Russia has actually an
economic interest, unfortunately, in the Iranian nuclear
program and that China relies heavily on Iran for oil exports?
Is that not true?
Secretary Panetta. Correct.
Senator Ayotte. Yet they have failed also to step up to the
plate to impose the types of tougher sanctions we would like
them to do so that the world is together to stop Iran from
acquiring nuclear weapons capability; is that not true?
Secretary Panetta. You're correct.
Senator Ayotte. What can we do to be tougher on Russia and
China if they are going to take their position in the world as
part of the world leadership? I view their behavior in blocking
the U.N. resolution as irresponsible and also the fact that
they haven't stepped up to the plate to make sure that we stop
Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. It's all
related and it's obviously very detrimental to the safety of
the world. What should we be doing there to be tougher on them?
Secretary Panetta. Obviously, you should hear this directly
from Secretary Clinton, but my knowledge is that Secretary
Clinton is exhausting every effort to try to engage both Russia
and China in this effort, particularly Russia because of its
longstanding relationship there, because it owns a harbor in
Syria and has the record that you just described with Syria,
that Russia could, if they wanted to accept the responsibility
that they should, they could be helpful here in the effort to
try to remove Assad.
Senator Ayotte. I appreciate those efforts. Mr. Putin just
got reelected and I would hope that he wouldn't want the blood
of the deaths of Syrians on his hand and that he would stop
selling arms to the Assad regime, and, of course, that both
Russia and China would step up, support the U.N. resolution.
Both those countries, in my view, I don't know why they would
not want to pursue every possible means to stop what is
happening and the bloodshed there.
I appreciate all of your efforts on it and I hope that they
understand that we're very serious about that. We will, in
Congress, look at actions we can take, too, because this is
really wrong and they're on the wrong side of history, both
with respect to the Syrian regime. They're on the wrong side of
history with respect to Iran, and they will look back at this
as a big mistake by both of these countries if they don't step
up to the plate right now.
I also wanted to ask about the Assad regime's relationship
just with some of the groups that we have labeled terrorist
groups. What's the Assad regime's relationship with Hezbollah?
Secretary Panetta. That's probably better addressed in a
closed session in terms of the specific relationship, but there
has been a longstanding relationship between Hezbollah and
Syria. It's actually diminished of late. Hezbollah has stood
aside and hasn't directly been involved in some of the violence
that's taken place in Syria.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you.
Also with Hamas?
Secretary Panetta. Hamas the same, the same thing.
Senator Ayotte. In fact, as I understand, at least based on
public reports, Hamas is actually stepping back from the
situation. Yet Iran has not stepped back?
Secretary Panetta. Correct.
Senator Ayotte. They're continuing to push forward.
Secretary Panetta. That's right.
Senator Ayotte. Let me ask you, does the violence that's
happening in Syria have any impact on stability in Iraq?
Secretary Panetta. Interestingly, there was a point at
which, obviously, Iraq was standing to the side and not
engaged. I think, as a result of what they've seen happening in
Syria, that Iraq itself has now asked for Assad to step down
and they are more engaged than they were in the past.
Senator Ayotte. Do you view this as a positive step?
Secretary Panetta. Yes.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you both. My time is up. I appreciate
your being before the committee today on such an important
issue.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Ayotte.
We are planning on a closed session immediately following
this, and if we succeed that means surely that there will only
be one round here, and it is our plan to succeed.
Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr.
Secretary, and General Dempsey.
General Dempsey, all of the military options which are
beginning to be contemplated--the humanitarian corridors,
limited aerial strikes, safe havens--all would presume that we
would have complete control of the air space over Syria. Given
what we know about their air defense systems, that would
presume--I don't know if you can comment openly--that the first
step in any type of military operation would be a campaign to
suppress their air defense systems. Can you give us some
general notion about how long that would take and how
challenging it would be?
General Dempsey. Senator, as I mentioned, we've
demonstrated the capability to penetrate air defense systems
for a discrete purpose in a very limited amount of time, and
that stays; we still have that capability. As I mentioned, to
conduct an enduring or a sustained campaign we would have to
suppress the air defense. In closed session, we do have an
estimate, based on gaming and modeling, of how long it would
take to do that, given the density and the sophistication of
their air defense system. But it would be an extended period of
time and a great number of aircraft.
Senator Reed. It would be, by the nature of our capability,
presumptively led by the United States, rather than our NATO
allies, because of our capabilities?
General Dempsey. Almost unquestionably. We have the
electronic warfare capabilities necessary to do that.
Senator Reed. So from a perceptual view alone, the opening
stages in any military operation would be an extended, almost
exclusively air campaign by the United States against Syria,
presumably supported politically by the Arab League, NATO, the
EU, and everyone else. But the first kinetic part of the
operation would be ours for several weeks before we actually
started even going in and effectively protecting Syrians. Is
that a fair judgment?
General Dempsey. It is a fair judgment. We can only act
with the authorized use of military force either with the
consent of a nation, in our national self-defense, or with an
U.N. Security Council Resolution (UNSCR). So we would have to
have some legal basis. It would be my military advice that,
whatever we do, we be part of a coalition, both because we
increase our capability and capacity, but also we've shown that
that produces an enduring outcome.
Then we'd have to balance it against risk elsewhere in the
region.
Senator Reed. The other aspect is that in testimony
yesterday General Mattis indicated that, unlike Iraq, there
were no natural safe haven areas, the mountains. Also, I think
unlike Iraq, there's no force, very well-organized that could
provide even a limited self-defense. So creating these safe
havens, there's a geographic challenge and there's also an
institutional challenge. Who's going to physically defend them?
We could have air power and try to interdict Syrian
military convoys and tank columns, but that wouldn't work 100
percent. So is that another challenge that you're considering?
General Dempsey. Yes, it is a challenge. Again, in the
context of this, as you note, the border with Iraq, the border
with Jordan, the border with Israel, and the border with Turkey
all have their own unique complexities. So I think we'd have to
go through that.
But I want to be clear. We can do anything. It's not about
can we do it, but it's should we do it and what are the
opportunity costs elsewhere and what are the risks.
Senator Reed. In terms of opportunity costs, there are
costs in collateral civilian casualties to air operations.
There are costs in terms of time, a lot of time or some time to
set up the operations. So that the notion that we can in a few
hours or days quickly go in and establish superiority, stop the
fighting, is not accurate.
General Dempsey. You obviously have a military background,
sir. [Laughter.]
Senator Reed. I show up on time most times, if that's it.
Secretary Panetta. Senator, if I could just point out,
again we can discuss this in closed session, but what we've
talked about is that air defense system that is pretty
sophisticated. But more importantly, a lot of it is located in
populated areas. There would be severe collateral damage in
going after those areas.
Senator Reed. Let me change the subject, Mr. Secretary,
because we've talked on the military aspects, but there's a
political aspect here. I'm not at all an expert on Syria, but
what struck me in some of my reading is that there is a small
Alawite clan of Shia who dominate the government, but the other
minority sectors, the Syrian Kurds, the Syrian Christians, also
seem to see their future most closely allied with Assad and his
group. They are very influential, even though a minority, very
influential. There has yet to be the creation of a truly
national and credible opposition to Assad. So it's awfully
difficult to build this or to get him off when there's nobody
to take his place and there's still strong support in areas, in
communities, that you wouldn't necessarily think would be
supporting him.
Is that part of the analysis that you looked at?
Secretary Panetta. That's correct, and that's part of the
problem. Having worked pretty closely on the Libyan situation,
when there were some leaders that came to the front and were
able to organize a council and it had credibility with the
opposition, and unfortunately that's not the case here. There
are some outside groups that are trying to organize, but there
isn't the relationship with regards to what's happening in the
country. As a result, it's very difficult to be able to know
who we deal with there in terms of an opposition.
Senator Reed. The only, the final point I'd make, is that,
going back to military capacity in Libya--and again, I think
the first point is we have to assume Syria is not Libya. But
there, there seemed to be tribal paramilitary organizations. I
don't get the same impression that outside the military there's
any type of security forces, there's any kind of counterpoint;
and that we would have to, unless there was a political
solution to force Assad off, if he was going to be deposed it
would have to be organized. We'd have to organize a force and
that would take many, many months.
General Dempsey. That's the current state of our thinking
about how we might do this. If you think about two recent
experiences: Libya, we had tribal forces on the east and west
collapsing onto the center, essentially. Even in Afghanistan,
we had the Northern Alliance collapsing on the center. There's
no geographic density of opposition to collapse anywhere.
They're all intermingled.
By the way, it's 70 percent Sunni and 30 percent Druze,
Christians, Alawi Shia. The Alawites have been in control and
have essentially protected the others. So there is that dynamic
as well.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Reed.
Senator Cornyn.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, you discussed briefly with Senator Ayotte
Russia's role in Syria.
Mr. Chairman, I have an article in Reuters February 21,
2012. The title is ``Russia boosts arms sales to Syria despite
world pressure.'' I'd ask unanimous consent that that be made
part of the record.
Chairman Levin. It will be made part of the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cornyn. I'm grateful to you for that.
This article suggests that Russia has continued to supply a
variety of weapons to Syria through an arms exporter by the
name of Rosoboronexport. I guess, General Dempsey, I'm catching
myself because I know you suggested some of this you'd like to
go into in closed session.
But let me ask, Secretary Panetta, General Dempsey, does
Russia have a physical presence in Syria as part of their arms
sales business?
Secretary Panetta. They do.
Senator Cornyn. What specifically, Secretary Panetta, is
Russia's interest in Syria?
Secretary Panetta. They've had a longstanding economic and
military relationship in Syria. As we said, the port there in
Syria is owned by the Russians. It's their port. So they've had
a lot of shipping that's gone in there over the years. They've
transferred not only military aid, but also economic assistance
as well. So they've had a very longstanding relationship with
Syria that makes them one of the key players. If they really
wanted to assert the kind of responsibility they should, they
would be a key player in bringing pressure on Assad.
Senator Cornyn. Let me transition just a little bit to the
Department of Defense's (DOD) business transactions with this
same firm I mentioned to you earlier, Rosoboronexport, that is
engaged in military sales of Russian weapons to Assad's regime.
Reportedly, this company has signed a deal with the Syrian
government to sell it 36 combat jets capable of hitting
civilian ground targets.
Can you confirm that?
Secretary Panetta. I can't. I'd have to look into that.
[The information referred to follows:]
We cannot confirm that such a deal was signed. According to Russian
press reports--citing a source close to Rosoboronexport, Russia's state
arms export corporation--in late 2011, Moscow signed an agreement to
sell 36 Yak-130 jet trainer aircraft to Syria. Senior Russia Government
officials, when questioned about this deal, have reiterated that arms
sales to Syria remain legal under international law, though they have
not confirmed the agreement.
Senator Cornyn. I don't mean to blind-side you. I'll
certainly share this article with you, and I'd be interested in
following up in greater detail.
Rosoboronexport was sanctioned by the United States in
October 2008 for assisting Iran's nuclear program, but those
sanctions were lifted by the Department of State in May 2010.
This is what I wanted to get to. It's my understanding the DOD
has, through an initiative led by the U.S. Army, is currently
buying dual-use Mi-17 helicopters for the Afghan military from
this very same company.
I'd like to know whether either one of you can confirm that
at this point?
General Dempsey. No, but I can certainly take that for the
record. I can confirm we are buying Mi-17s for the Afghan
military, but I can't confirm that that's the corporation
providing them.
Senator Cornyn. I understand that and I look forward to
following up with you.
[The information referred to follows:]
Yes, the U.S. Army is purchasing Russian Mi-17 helicopters for use
by the ANSF from Rosoboronexport. A response to the 12 March written
inquiry on this same subject from Senator Cornyn and 16 other U.S.
Senators is also forthcoming from the Secretary of Defense.
The U.S. Army entered into a contract to procure 21 Mi-17
helicopters from Rosoboronexport. Nine have been delivered, 6 are
complete awaiting shipment, and the remaining 6 will be ready for
delivery by the end of May. We have completed payment for all. The
Department has also exercised an option for two additional aircraft and
has a requirement from the NATO Aviation Training Command-Afghanistan
for an additional 10 aircraft. Once this option is exercised, the
contract will be complete. These aircraft are delivered in a full
military mission ready configuration, including spare parts and a 1-
year warranty. The Mi-17 acquisition effort is critical to building the
capacity of the ANSF. Our acquisition of these Mi-17 helicopters is
part of our strategy to hand over the security of Afghanistan to the
Afghan people. Rosoboronexport is the sole entity controlling export of
military Mi-17 helicopters.
The Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan identified an
operational requirement, which was validated by the Commander, U.S.
Central Command, for acquisition of Mi-17 helicopters for the Afghan
Air Force (AAF). The decision to procure Mi-17s was made after
considering and eliminating the Bell Huey II as an option. The Mi-17
has proven operational capabilities in the extreme environments of
Afghanistan. The Mi-17 has low technical complexity compared to other
platforms, making it easier for AAF members to maintain and operate,
while being supportable within Afghan educational limitations. A change
in acquisition strategy would add additional aircraft types to the
fleet and would complicate the maintenance, sustainment, and supply
systems required to support the fleet. Introduction of a new helicopter
to the AAF might require two additional years of U.S. assistance to
Afghanistan.
The purchase of Mi-17s from Rosoboronexport has reduced the risk of
acquiring counterfeit aircraft or spare parts and has given us
unprecedented access to original equipment manufacturer technical data
that we would not otherwise receive. This ensures the safe operation
and airworthiness of these aircraft, which are routinely flown by U.S.
aircrews mentoring the AAF. Options for procuring used Mi-17s on the
secondary market exist, but new Mi-17s are only manufactured in Russia.
Since Mi-17s have fixed flight hour life limits that cannot be
extended, sustained support to Afghanistan may require replacements for
their oldest Mi-17s.
Note: The termination of sanctions imposed on Rosoboronexport
pursuant to Section 3 of the Iran, North Korea, and Syria
Nonproliferation Act was effective 21 May 2010.
Senator Cornyn. General Dempsey, can you explain why we
would buy helicopters for the Afghan military from this arms
exporter that's been sanctioned by the U.S. Government for its
illicit activities with Iran, and which is the principal means
by which Russia is arming Assad's regime and killing so many
Syrians?
General Dempsey. Assuming we are, because again I have to
confirm or deny that we are, but assuming we are, as the
process goes in a competition, if they're not sanctioned and
enter the competition it could very well be that they ended up
being the lowest bidder and therefore they could very well have
been selected. But I can't confirm that. I have to get back to
you, Senator.
Senator Cornyn. I understand that.
If, in fact, this article is correct, this means that,
instead of creating jobs and selling American helicopters to
the Afghan military, we are working with a Russian arms
exporter to sell these Mi-17 helicopters, which makes
absolutely no sense to me. But as you said and as I've said, I
don't want to blind-side you with this information. I'd like to
get an explanation.
But if, in fact, if this report is true that this same arms
dealer is arming Assad's regime and killing innocent Syrians
and also under a contract with DOD to provide helicopters to
the Afghan military, that causes me significant concerns, and I
bet it does you, too. So I'd like to get to the bottom of that,
if you will help me do that.
General Dempsey, you talked about the need to balance the
risks of intervening in Syria with other parts of the region.
What would happen if Assad were to fall and the forces of
democracy begin to, hopefully, take root in Syria? What would
that do to Iran's aspirations in the region? What would that do
to Hezbollah, a terrorist organization supported by Iran? What
would that do to Hamas and what would that do to Lebanon? What
would be the impact that you would hope for in the region?
General Dempsey. As General Mattis testified yesterday, it
would certainly diminish Iran's influence in the region and set
back their aspirations of becoming a regional hegemon
dramatically.
Senator Cornyn. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Thank you, gentlemen.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Cornyn.
Senator Blumenthal is next.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you both for your very forthright and also careful
and cautious approach to this problem. I think many of us are
approaching this issue with a high degree of humility, given
the lack of complete or even reliable information and looking
forward to knowing more as you brief us in a more secure
setting.
But even with all that care and caution, I'm struck, Mr.
Secretary, by the certitude of your prediction that this regime
will fall. You say: ``Make no mistake. One way or the other,
this regime will meet its end.'' There are very few things in
life that are inevitable and right now the Assad regime seems
on the march. It seems to have momentum on its side. You have
described very graphically how this opposition is less
organized than the Libyan.
So I think that's the reason that many of us here feel that
we need to do more, that the United States needs to take a more
aggressive and proactive role in this fight without--and I
should stress--without American troops on the ground, no boots-
on-the-ground.
That's the reason that Senator Graham and I are planning to
introduce and cosponsor a resolution that will ask for
condemnation of Assad for the war crimes that he is inflicting
on his own people, the brutal and barbaric criminal actions
against his own people, and the slaughter and massacre that's
taking place, that will seek to send that message that you
describe in your testimony that the United States will support
the Syrian people.
But, of course, there really need to be more than just
words here. So let me begin by asking whether there is
currently planning for the delivery of medical and other
humanitarian aid to the opposition?
Secretary Panetta. Yes, there is. Let me also mention, with
regards to your prefacing remarks, it's always dangerous to
make predictions in that part of the world, and what I'm giving
you is the best assessment by our intelligence community as to
the situation there in Syrian.
But I also think that you shouldn't take it for granted
that somehow we're going to sit back and allow the status quo
to be the case. We are working very hard at trying to build the
international coalition that we need. We're working hard at
humanitarian aid. We're working hard at trying to do everything
we can to try to bring additional pressure on Syria in order to
ensure that Assad does step aside.
Senator Blumenthal. Is humanitarian aid being delivered
now?
Secretary Panetta. We are delivering elements of
humanitarian aid as we speak.
Senator Blumenthal. How much? Can you quantify it?
Secretary Panetta. $10 million was the case that we had. In
Homs alone, we have U.S. Government partners that have
delivered food for 4,000 households, and they've also delivered
medical supplies. We're working with the international
community to try to gain greater access, and the International
Committee of the Red Cross and the World Food Program are
working with the Syrian Arab Red Crescent to provide additional
aid. So we're trying to do that on a broader front.
Senator Blumenthal. I appreciate that information.
How quickly and in what quantities could that humanitarian
aid be increased?
Secretary Panetta. I'm going to have to look at that and
give you a more direct answer based on what the State
Department and U.S. Agency for International Development are
doing right now to try to increase that aid. I can give you a
more explicit answer based on getting that information from
them.
[The information referred to follows:]
Our priority, before and after Assad's departure, is getting
humanitarian assistance into Syria. As you know, Secretary of State
Clinton pledged $10 million in U.S. humanitarian assistance for Syria
in the March Friends of Syria meeting in Tunisia, and she indicated
that more aid would follow. These funds will help support makeshift
medical facilities, train emergency medical staff, and get clean water,
food, blankets, heaters, and hygiene kits to Syrian civilians in need.
This assistance includes $3.5 million to the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees, $3 million to the International Committee of
the Red Cross, $3 million to the World Food Program, and support for
other international nongovernmental partners.
U.S. humanitarian efforts also include bolstering existing regional
stockpiles of humanitarian supplies and equipment to be delivered to
those Syrian communities in greatest need. The build-up of stockpiles
of food and other emergency relief supplies are a result of the growing
international effort to rush humanitarian aid into Syria to alleviate
the suffering of vulnerable communities as access and conditions allow.
Our ability to provide more humanitarian aid depends substantially
on the conditions on the ground. The primary constraint facing the
humanitarian organizations through and with which we work is a lack of
safe, continuous access to affected populations--not a lack of funding,
medical supplies, or other provisions.
Over the coming weeks, we will continue to explore how we can best
support humanitarian efforts in Syria, including whether and how to
increase humanitarian assistance.
Senator Blumenthal. Is planning underway to increase that
aid?
Secretary Panetta. That's correct.
Senator Blumenthal. On communications equipment, which
seems essential for a diverse and divided opposition to really
launch a coordinated defense and offense, what is being done to
provide communications equipment?
Secretary Panetta. I'd prefer to discuss that in a closed
session, but I can tell you that we are considering an array of
non-lethal assistance.
Senator Blumenthal. Is it fair to say that planning is
ongoing to provide that assistance?
Secretary Panetta. That is correct.
Senator Blumenthal. Even though right now as we speak none
is being provided?
Secretary Panetta. That's correct.
Senator Blumenthal. With respect to other technical
assistance, putting aside for the moment the air strike
capability, is other technical assistance being provided?
Secretary Panetta. Plans are being made to provide an array
of non-lethal assistance, including technical assistance.
Senator Blumenthal. General Dempsey has very well described
the time that it would take to suppress the aerial defense, but
I take it that issue is not an obstacle to providing these
other kinds of assistance?
Secretary Panetta. That's correct.
Senator Blumenthal. It could be done immediately?
Secretary Panetta. That's correct.
Senator Blumenthal. I would appreciate additional
information to this committee as to what can be done, within
what timeframes, short of air strikes.
Is there support among any of the potential allies in
military action for the kind of planning that you are doing? In
other words, are specific countries volunteering specific
contributions in potential military action?
Secretary Panetta. That's again something I think we'd
prefer to discuss in closed session. But there have been
discussions in other countries about that.
Senator Blumenthal. So that planning is underway, fair to
say?
Secretary Panetta. I'd rather discuss that in closed
session.
[The information referred to follows:]
U.S. Government assistance-humanitarian supplies and communications
equipment--includes items that the Syrian opposition has indicated
would help in their efforts to organize. As implemented by the
Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development, we
view this non-lethal assistance as critical to supporting our policy to
hasten the fall of the Assad regime, and to move forward with a Syrian-
led democratic transition.
We are working closely with our allies and partners, particularly
Jordan and Turkey, to understand the dynamic composition of all
elements of the Syrian opposition. Providing arms is not something we
are considering now, as we believe it could heighten and prolong the
violence in Syria. We remain focused on diplomatic efforts to increase
pressure on, and the isolation of, the Assad regime.
There is still no consensus within the international community
regarding possible military intervention in Syria. However, the United
States continues to plan for a range of contingencies with allies and
partners.
General Dempsey. Yes, I'd say it's risen to the level of
collaboration; consultation, not planning.
Senator Blumenthal. In order to do planning you would have
to engage in that consultation; is that fair to say?
Turning to the resolution that Senator Graham and I have
proposed, do you think, a sense of the Senate that there should
be an investigation and prosecution of Assad for war crimes
would have an encouraging and positive effect on the
determination of the Syrian people to resist this regime?
Secretary Panetta. Senator, I'd prefer that you direct that
question to the State Department because of the negotiating
they're doing on a broader international front. I think you
need to ask them the question whether this would be helpful.
Senator Blumenthal. We'll do that.
Let me just close, because my time has expired, by saying
that I very strongly share Senator Cornyn's concerns about the
sales of equipment by the same company that is arming the
Syrians to the Afghan Government, helicopters that are being
sold to the Afghanistan Government, by the very same company
that is acting on behalf of the Russian Government to arm the
Syrians. I share his concern that there appears to be a less
than compelling reason to use Russian helicopters sold by
Rosoboronexport in Afghanistan when we could be selling our own
helicopters to them.
I also ask, Mr. Chairman, that an additional article on
that subject be made a part of the record. It is a July 24,
2011, article from the Washington Times titled: ``Pro-Russia
policy stalls Afghan copters.''
Chairman Levin. It will be made a part of the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Secretary Panetta. Senator, we need to look at those
reports. If those reports are true, we would share your same
concern.
Senator Blumenthal. There's no denial in the reports, for
what it's worth, that it is true. There's no denial from any
official sources. I would hope that we would have a response.
Thank you so much for your service to the country and your
very helpful testimony here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
Because we would all be very much concerned with the issue
that Senator Cornyn has raised and Senator Blumenthal just
mentioned, we would hope that you'd give us the detail on that
forthwith. Thank you.
Senator Graham is next.
Senator Graham. Thank you.
I'm no helicopter expert, but I asked that question when I
was over in Afghanistan about a year or 2 ago, and I was told
that the helicopter in question is just a better fit for the
Afghan military in terms of maintenance and capability. So that
may not be the case. If there's an American helicopter that
fits the needs of this, I'm all for them buying from us. But
that's what I was told. So I'd like to hear more.
Senator Blumenthal made a very good observation. I don't
think any of us who want to be more involved in Syria believe
that boots-on-the-ground is a good idea. They haven't been
requested and certainly we're not anywhere near that point for
me.
I would like to build on what Senator Blumenthal asked. He
asked a very good question. You basically said, Mr. Secretary,
that Assad should be viewed as a war criminal. I think that's a
good analysis to take.
The U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on
Syria in February issued a report, 72 pages, but this is the
sum and substance of it to me: ``Such violations''--talking
about atrocities, gross human rights violations--``originated
from policies and directives issued at the highest levels of
the Armed Forces and the government.''
Do you agree with that? Is that a pretty good
characterization?
Secretary Panetta. In Syria?
Senator Graham. Yes.
Secretary Panetta. In Syria, yes.
Senator Graham. I think it is. Senator Collins and I were
talking. The dilemma is if you go after him maybe it entrenches
him.
I've come to believe in situations like this that he's
going to do what he's going to do, and if he were rational he
wouldn't be doing what he's doing. But from his point of view,
he obviously believes he's rational, and he's trying to just
wait us all out and kill as many people as he can and hope we
get tired of it and walk away.
It would be really good for the Syrian people to know that
the international community views what's being done to them as
an outrage and that they would get support, morally and
otherwise, from the idea that we all saw the abuses against
them as unacceptable. So I don't know how it affects Assad, but
I sure think it would help them.
Now, let's get into the situation of what happens after he
leaves. Do you really believe, Secretary Panetta and General
Dempsey, that the people are going through this pain and
suffering at the end of the day to replace Assad with al Qaeda?
Secretary Panetta. No.
General Dempsey. No, nor do I.
Senator Graham. The real concern we have is that there are
minorities in the country, the Alawites in particular, that
could really be on the receiving end of some reprisals if we
don't think about this; is that right?
Secretary Panetta. That's correct.
Senator Graham. In our efforts to find out what happens
next, are we guiding the Syrian opposition in any way to form a
plan? Are we involved with them?
Secretary Panetta. Obviously that's the biggest challenge,
because we are dealing with a pretty disparate group.
Senator Graham. Are we trying to create order out of chaos?
Secretary Panetta. Yes.
Senator Graham. See, somebody's going to bet on the stock
that follows Assad and I want to be on the ground floor of this
new enterprise. I don't want to just show up after it's over. I
want to get ready now and try to mold the outcome, and you
don't have to have boots-on-the-ground to do that.
But when it comes to what happens next, do you believe that
if Assad were replaced by the will of the international
community, led by the United States, that that may do more good
regarding Iran's ambitions for nuclear weapons than sanctions,
if they saw the international community take their ally down,
that we had the resolve to do it?
Secretary Panetta. It would certainly add to the impact of
the sanctions to have this happen in convincing Iran that
they're alone.
Senator Graham. I just can't help but believe if their ally
Syria went down because the international community led by the
United States said enough is enough and did reasonable things
to take him down, that that wouldn't have a positive impact.
Now, when it comes to planning, Senator Blumenthal asked a
lot of good questions about what we're doing and what we're
planning. Am I wrong to assume that from your testimony the
President of the United States has not requested a military
plan regarding engaging Syria?
General Dempsey. No, that's not correct. The President of
the United States, through the National Security Staff, has
asked us to begin the commander's estimate, the estimate of the
situation.
Senator Graham. That's good. So there is movement in
process in DOD to provide the President some options; is that
correct?
Secretary Panetta. Correct.
Senator Graham. Now, when it comes to China and Russia, do
you believe they will ever change their tune at the U.N., that
we'll ever get them on board for a U.N. resolution like we had
in Libya regarding Syria?
Secretary Panetta. I don't think it's totally out of the
question. Both countries have been embarrassed, I think, by the
stand that they took on the U.N. resolution.
Senator Graham. But they can withstand a lot of
embarrassment.
Secretary Panetta. Yes.
Senator Graham. If you were a betting man, do you believe
that they will ever come on board?
Secretary Panetta. If Russia wants to maintain its contacts
with Syria, maintain their port, and have some involvement with
whatever government replaces Assad, they might be thinking
about an approach that would allow them to have some impact on
where this goes. So I don't rule it out that they wouldn't----
Senator Graham. Would you say that should not be our only
option, that we should come up with a contingency plan in case
Russia doesn't wake up one day and realize they're on the wrong
side of history, that we have another way of engaging without
China and Russia?
Secretary Panetta. Absolutely.
Senator Graham. Now, let's talk about the Arab League. The
Arab League has changed mightily in the last year, haven't
they, given their involvement in the Mideast?
Secretary Panetta. They sure have.
Senator Graham. Do you believe it's generated by the Arab
Spring; that the Arab League was an association of dictatorial
regimes that now are betting on the right side of history, and
they see Assad as being on the wrong side of history, and
that's incredibly encouraging?
Secretary Panetta. Absolutely.
Senator Graham. Don't you think in our long-term national
security interests we have a window in time here to marry up
with the Arab League in terms of military, humanitarian,
economic, follow-on assistance to the countries that have
people who are saying, I'm tired of being led by dictators? Are
we doing enough to seize that moment in history?
Secretary Panetta. I can assure you that Secretary Clinton
and I are working with our Arab League partners to try to do
everything we can to develop and maintain the coalition that
was established with Libya, but to maintain it as a continuing
influence over what happens elsewhere in that region.
Senator Graham. My final thought is that if the slaughter
continues I do believe that the world, including the United
States, has the capability to neutralize the slaughter through
air power. Given the way the world is and the way Syria is, is
there a likelihood, even a remote possibility, that if we
engaged the artillery forces and the tank drivers who are
killing people who basically have AK-47s, that maybe the other
people in tanks would get out and quit if we blew up a few of
them?
General Dempsey. There's certainly that possibility.
Senator Graham. I think that is a high likelihood.
Thank you both for your service.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Graham.
Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Panetta, General Dempsey, thank you both very
much for being here.
I want to follow up on the issues that have been raised
about arms shipments from Russia and China. Reports are that 30
percent of Syrian arms come from China and North Korea. You
talked a little bit about the Russian perspective, but I'm not
clear whether we think there is any way to engage the Chinese
on this issue. Is this something the international community
has developed a strategy on for how to prevent or reduce future
arms shipments from Russia and China?
Secretary Panetta. The international community is concerned
about what you just discussed, and the international community,
led by the United States, is trying to engage both Russia and
China to try to see if we can change their approach to Syria.
General Dempsey. Senator, if I could, we said here this
morning that it's very clear and documented that Russia has an
arms sale agreement with Syria. We've also said we need to get
back to you on whether China does. I don't know the answer to
that question.
Senator Shaheen. That comes from published reports.
I appreciated what you both had to say about our efforts
around humanitarian aid. I think most of us looking at the
pictures, the reports on the news, the pictures in the
newspapers of the slaughter that's going on inside Syria, are
very concerned about the cost in human lives, particularly for
civilians, the women and children who have been killed.
Obviously, as the result there have been a lot, thousands
of refugees who are going over the borders. First of all, is
there more that we can or should be doing to address those
refugees who are fleeing, as well as the humanitarian efforts
on the ground in Syria that you talked about?
Then can you also address concerns that we might have about
the destabilizing effect that refugees might have, particularly
in Lebanon?
Secretary Panetta. We are doing everything we can to expand
the humanitarian effort. There is more that can be done and
that needs to be done. Indeed, one of the options we're looking
at is whether or not to establish these humanitarian zones to
try to assist the refugees in a more effective way.
The refugee flows, if they continue at the rate that we see
are clearly going to have an impact on the neighboring
countries. We've already seen that happening.
General Dempsey. Could I add, Senator? Having lived over
there for more than 5 years, refugees, because of family and
tribal relationships, they're hard to pin down actually, how
many and where they are, because they blend in.
Senator Shaheen. Sure.
General Dempsey. So during the Iraq war there were many
Iraqi Sunni al Anbar refugees that flowed into Syria, and what
we're seeing is some of them are flowing back now. We think
maybe 15,000 from Syria into Jordan, maybe 10,000 into Lebanon,
maybe 10,000 into Turkey. The way you first learn about it is
when they put demands on the host nation medical system and
some other things.
So the answer to the question is yes, of course there's
more we can do and should. We have to do it through the host
nations because they really understand this in a way that we
can't.
Senator Shaheen. How engaged are the Arab League and the
European community in supporting these kinds of humanitarian
efforts?
Secretary Panetta. They're very engaged, and we are working
with the international community and the Arab League in
addressing the humanitarian issue.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
To go on to Syria's weapons arsenal, I know that there have
been reports that they have the biggest chemical weapon arsenal
in the world. I had a chance to ask General Mattis about this
yesterday, about what concerns we have should Assad fall, about
the security of those arsenals and what potential threat to the
rest of the region they might present. Can you address that?
General Dempsey. I can address it in great detail in closed
session.
Senator Shaheen. Okay. I appreciate that.
Senator Collins, Senator Gillibrand, and I sent a letter to
the administration expressing our concerns about this.
Secretary Panetta. Senator, there's no question that they
have huge stockpiles and that if it got into the wrong hands it
would really be a threat to the security, not only of the
regional countries, but to the United States.
Senator Shaheen. Recognizing that you don't want to address
this in an open session, but can you compare it to the
situation that we found in Libya last year? I know 20,000
Manportable Air-Defense System (MANPADS) disappeared in Libya.
So how do we compare this situation?
Secretary Panetta. It's 100 times worse than what we dealt
with in Libya, and for that reason that's why it's raised even
greater concerns about our ability to address how we can secure
those sites.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. Are there new sanctions the
administration and Congress could enact that would further
dissuade other countries who might be assisting Syria either
directly or inadvertently to try and continue to isolate Syria
and those countries who are helping?
Secretary Panetta. There are. I have to tell you, one of
the things that has really come together are the sanctions that
have been put in place. They target senior leadership and their
assets. They're hampering foreign transactions. There's been a
gross domestic product (GDP) decline from a minus 2 to a minus
8 percent. So the GDP has taken a hit from the sanctions.
There's a loss of revenue, 30 percent loss of revenue due to
the oil embargo that's taking place, and that's continuing to
have an impact. There's been almost a 20 percent currency
depreciation.
Senator Shaheen. So do we think there's a possibility that
Assad is just going to run out of money if this continues
indefinitely?
Secretary Panetta. They'll always struggle to find ways
around some of this, but this is squeezing him badly and they
are at least in the process of running out of money.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Shaheen.
Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you.
Thank you, both of you, for your service to the country.
I had the opportunity to travel a few weeks ago with
Senators McCain and Graham and Blumenthal and others to the
Middle East. I think there is a sense, in Senator McCain's vast
experience in this region, that the United States' position
clearly spoken does impact people. Revolutions and people are
standing up against oppressive regimes are encouraged and
emboldened if they sense the United States clearly articulates
the justice of their cause.
I think we've been a bit weak on that. In Iran, when we had
the revolution there, the protests there, that was a window of
opportunity I am really, really disappointed we didn't somehow
participate more positively in.
So I don't know. I believe you said, Secretary Panetta, or
maybe General Dempsey, there's a difference between contingency
planning and a commander's estimate. What is the difference?
General Dempsey. The commander's estimate, the acronym is
``METTT.'' What are the potential missions, what is the enemy
order of battle, what are the enemy's capabilities or potential
enemies, what are the troops we have available, and how much
time? So mission, enemy, terrain, troops, and time or METTT.
That's a commander's estimate.
Senator Sessions. You're looking at that?
General Dempsey. Yes.
Senator Sessions. Have you completed that?
General Dempsey. Yes.
Senator Sessions. You said, Secretary Panetta, that you're
waiting on the President before doing contingency planning.
What would be the contingency planning? What would be the next
level?
General Dempsey. The next level of detail would be for us
to take actual units from someplace else and apply them against
that template in order to come up with operational concepts,
how would we do it.
Senator Sessions. If you were another nation that was
potentially interested in helping in this situation, wouldn't
you be a little more impressed if we'd gone further in our
detail? Does it not suggest that we are really not that
interested in taking action if we have not gone further?
Secretary Panetta. No, not at all. I think the assumptions
that we've worked through, we've discussed them with the
President, we've discussed them with the National Security
Council. We are in the process of developing even further ideas
with regards to some of those options. Ultimately, obviously,
when the President makes the decision as to what course he
wants to take in line, obviously, with our international
partners, we'll be ready to go.
Senator Sessions. You said that we'll take our time
earlier, and when we do, it will be well-prepared. But I have
to say, Senator Blumenthal and others have raised the question
of whether or not this window is not already closing. Dictators
have successfully crushed revolutions many times in history.
How confident are you that this--I know you have an estimate,
but I don't see how an estimate that this country--that Assad's
about to be toppled can be justified based on what we're seeing
just publicly on the ground.
Secretary Panetta. Senator, the fundamental issue that is
before us is whether or not the United States will go ahead and
act unilaterally in that part of the world and engage in
another war in the Muslim world unilaterally, or whether or not
we will work with others in determining what action we take.
That's the fundamental decision that needs to be made.
Senator Sessions. Isn't there a window, and can you say
with certainty that, even in a matter of a few weeks, that
Assad may have reestablished his control in the country and
there would be no likelihood of his regime toppling?
Secretary Panetta. According to the intelligence estimates
that I have seen, this insurgency is not only continuing, but
it's growing wider. When that happens, it's going to continue
to put a tremendous amount of pressure on Assad.
Senator Sessions. Maybe that's--I hope that's true and I
hope that we don't miss an opportunity here. I know Senator
Kerry and Senator McCain said use a no-fly zone over Libya. A
long time went by before that was done. Many believe, I think
Senator McCain believes, I believe, that had they been listened
to early there might have been fewer casualties and the regime
might have collapsed sooner.
So I just would say I value your opinion on this, because
you know more detail than I do.
General Dempsey, in one of your criteria for determining
what we might do militarily you say you have to ask the
question of whether the action is worth the cost and is
consistent with law. What law does the U.S. military look to?
General Dempsey. If I could, I'd like to address both since
they are related. So cost, resources, risk incurred elsewhere
by the use of force one other place. It's a zero-sum game. We
take them from someplace else, we use them for how long. That's
the kind of issue of cost, and the question of blood and
treasure.
The issue of legal basis is important, though. Again, we
act with the authorized use of military force either at the
consent of a government, so when we're invited in, or out of
national self-defense, and there's a very clear criteria for
that. Then the last one is with some kind of international
legal basis, an UNSCR.
Senator Sessions. Wait a minute. Let's talk about an
international legal basis. You answer under the Constitution to
the U.S. Government, do you not? You don't need any
international support before you would carry out a military
operation authorized by the Commander in Chief.
General Dempsey. No, of course not. That's the second one.
Senator Sessions. I just want to know that, because there's
a lot of references in here to international matters before we
make a decision. I want to be sure that the U.S. military
understands, and I know you do, that we're not dependent on a
NATO resolution or a U.N. resolution to execute policies
consistent with the national security of the United States.
Now, Secretary Panetta, in your talk, in your remarks, you
talk about: first, we are working to increase diplomatic
isolation and encouraging other countries to join the EU and
the Arab League in imposing sanctions. Then you note that China
and Russia have repeatedly blocked the U.N. Security Council
from taking action.
Are you saying and is the President taking the position he
would not act, if it was in our interest to do so, if the U.N.
Security Council did not agree?
Secretary Panetta. Senator, when it comes to our national
defense, we act based on protecting the security of this
country and we don't look for permission from anybody else when
it comes to our national defense.
When it comes to the kind of military action where we want
to build a coalition and work with our international partners,
then obviously we would like to have some kind of legal basis
on which to do it, as we did in Libya.
Senator Sessions. Now, some sort of legal basis. We're
worried about international legal basis, but nobody worried
about the fundamental constitutional legal basis that this
Congress has over war. We were not asked, stunningly, in direct
violation of the War Powers Act. Whether or not you believe
it's constitutional, you certainly didn't comply with it. We
spent our time worrying about the U.N., the Arab League, NATO,
and too little time, in my opinion, worrying about the elected
representatives of the United States.
As you go forward, will you consult with the United States
Congress, and can we be assured that you will have more
consultation and more participation and legal authority from
the duly elected representatives?
Secretary Panetta. Believe me, we will. We don't have a
corner on the market with regards to issues involving our
defense. We want to consult with Congress. We want to get your
best advice and your guidance. When we take action, we want to
do it together.
Senator Sessions. Do you think that you can act without
Congress and initiate a no-fly zone in Syria, without
congressional approval?
Secretary Panetta. Again, our goal would be to seek
international permission and we would come to Congress and
inform you and determine how best to approach this. Whether or
not we would want to get permission from Congress, I think
those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to
do here.
Senator Sessions. I'm almost breathless about that, because
what I heard you say is: We're going to seek international
approval and we will come and tell Congress what we might do,
and we might seek congressional approval. I want to just say to
you, that's a big--wouldn't you agree? You served in Congress.
Wouldn't you agree that that would be pretty breathtaking to
the average American? So would you like to clarify that?
Secretary Panetta. I served with Republican Presidents and
Democratic Presidents, who always reserved the right to defend
this country, if necessary.
Senator Sessions. But before we do this you would seek
permission of the international authorities?
Secretary Panetta. If we're working with an international
coalition and we're working with NATO, we would want to be able
to get appropriate permissions in order to be able to do that.
That's something that all of these countries would want to have
some kind of legal basis on which to act.
Senator Sessions. What legal basis are you looking for?
What entity?
Secretary Panetta. Obviously, if NATO made the decision to
go in that would be one. If we developed an international
coalition beyond NATO, then obviously some kind of U.N.
Security Resolution----
Senator Sessions. So a coalition of--so you're saying NATO
would give you a legal basis and an ad hoc coalition of nations
would provide a legal basis?
Secretary Panetta. If we were able to put together a
coalition and were able to move together, then obviously we
would seek whatever legal basis we would need in order to make
that justified. We can't just pull them all together in a
combat operation without getting the legal basis on which to
act.
Senator Sessions. Who are you asking for the legal basis
from?
Secretary Panetta. Obviously, if the U.N. passed a Security
Council Resolution, as it did in Libya, we would do that. If
NATO came together, as we did in Bosnia, we would rely on that.
So we have options here if we want to build the kind of
international approach to dealing with the situation.
Senator Sessions. I'm all for having international support,
but I'm really baffled by the idea that somehow an
international assembly provides a legal basis for the U.S.
military to be deployed in combat. I don't believe it's close
to being correct. They provide no legal authority. The only
legal authority that's required to deploy the U.S. military is
Congress and the President and the law and the Constitution.
Secretary Panetta. Let me just for the record be clear
again, Senator, so there's no misunderstanding. When it comes
to the national defense of this country, the President of the
United States has the authority under the Constitution to act
to defend this country and he will. If it comes to an operation
where we're trying to build a coalition of nations to work
together to go in and operate, as we did in Libya or Bosnia,
for that matter Afghanistan, we want to do it with permissions
either by NATO or by the international community.
Senator Sessions. I'm troubled by that. I think that it
does weaken the ability of the United States to lead. If we
believe something ought to be done, I'd be thinking we would be
going more aggressively to NATO and other allies, seeking every
ally that we can get. But I do think ultimately you need a
legal authority from the United States of America, not from any
other extraterritorial group that might assemble.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. I wonder, Senator Webb, if you would yield
to me just for one moment. I won't take it off your time.
Senator Webb. Certainly, certainly.
Chairman Levin. I would just like to clarify that last
point, because you used the word ``permission'' at times as
being helpful to achieving an international coalition. You
don't need any authority from anybody else, any permission from
anybody else, if we're going to act alone. You've made that
clear. You said it three times. I think that's essential.
But what you, as I understand it, are saying is that if
you're seeking an international coalition it would help if
there is a legal basis internationally in order to help obtain
that legal coalition. I don't think the word ``permission'' is
appropriate even in that context, by the way. I think you
really corrected it when you said a legal basis in
international law would help you achieve an international
coalition.
Secretary Panetta. That's correct.
Chairman Levin. If you're seeking an international
coalition, having that kind of international legal basis will
help. I think that's what you're trying to say and I hope that
is what you're trying to say.
Secretary Panetta. That's what I'm trying to say.
Chairman Levin. Okay.
Secretary Panetta. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Senator Webb.
Thank you, Senator Sessions.
Senator Webb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Senator Sessions is raising an important
point.
Senator Webb. Senator Sessions is. I don't want to eat up
too much of my own clock on this, but----
Chairman Levin. You have the time that's allotted.
Senator Webb.--I would like to clarify a point that has
been a concern to me on this very same issue. That is the
difference between the United States acting unilaterally if we
decide it's within our national interest and it's something
that you, Mr. Secretary, have raised in terms of the situation
in Syria--there's a difference between that and the President
deciding to act unilaterally in an area that arguably has not
been defined as a national security interest.
I made floor remarks on this. I have a great deal of
concern when you look at the Libya model, where the basic
justification has been humanitarian assistance, which is very
vague and it's not under the historical precepts that we have
otherwise used, like a treaty if you're talking about NATO, or
defending Americans who have been captured, as in Grenada, or
retaliating for a certain act, as we did in Libya, say, in
1986, when I was in the Pentagon.
So, I think, Senator Sessions has raised a point of
concern, and I would like to just put a parentheses around
that, but hold the thought. I think there definitely is room
for some very serious discussion here in Congress on the way
that the President, any President, can decide unilaterally to
use military action in this rather vague concept of
humanitarian assistance.
But to set that aside, what I really would like to talk
about today are my thoughts about your testimony, and I would
like to say very specifically that I found both of your
testimonies with respect to the situation in Syria very
reassuring. It was very careful and forthright. I think there's
a lot of wisdom in the approach that you're taking on this.
I think when people are talking about the need for
leadership, we need to understand and we need to have a little
sense of history here. Leadership is not always taking
precipitate action when the emotions are going. It's in
achieving results that will bring about long-term objectives.
Probably the greatest strategic victory in our lifetime was the
Cold War. That was conscious, decades-long application of
strategy with the right signals with respect to our national
security apparatus.
There's no one in the world that will doubt the ability of
the United States to put lethality on the battlefield if we
decide to do it. But that's not really always the question when
we're developing these kinds of policies, at least not the
first question. I thought your testimonies were very clear on
that from both of you.
Secretary Panetta, your comment about each situation is
unique. General Dempsey, I think your example of the danger of
looking at this through a straw is probably the best way to put
it. We have to look at all of the ramifications in these sorts
of matters.
I think the principles that you've laid down, we should all
support this type of logic: to forge an international
consensus, to translate the consensus into acts, and to at
least express our hope that this change can be brought about
through a peaceful political transition. I was taking notes as
you made your testimony, Secretary Panetta.
I want to ask you about one thing that you said because I
think we all need to think about it. You said, I think this is
a direct quote, I'm an old journalist here, I can write fast:
``Any government that indiscriminately kills its own people
loses its legitimacy.''
Would you say that is a statement of the policy of the
United States?
Secretary Panetta. I would.
Senator Webb. Would you believe that with the circumstances
in Tiananmen Square 1989, when the Chinese government turned
its own soldiers loose and its own tanks loose on its own
people and killed more than 1,000 people, would you say that
fits into this statement?
Secretary Panetta. Let me put this on a personal view. My
personal view would be that that was the case there.
Senator Webb. I think it also illustrates your comment that
in policy terms each situation is unique and that we have to
try to use the best building blocks we can in order to best
address these types of situations, depending on where they
happen and what other capabilities any one of these governments
might have.
This is something, I actually held a hearing on this in the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, talking about what might be
viewed as the situational ethics in terms of American foreign
policy. But it clearly demonstrates that you can't--there's no
one template here when we're attempting to resolve differences
in philosophy and policies with different countries.
So I would say that I do believe your exchange with Senator
Sessions may have been lost in translation because it went back
and forth so much, but I do believe Senator Sessions has a very
valid point in terms of presidential authority. But I strongly
support the analytical matrix, the policy matrix, that you are
putting into place with respect to Syria.
I thank you for your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Webb.
Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I think that this hearing and discussion this
morning, as well as yesterday, demonstrate how difficult the
challenge is that is posed by Syria. I don't think this lends
itself to an easy solution, as appalled as we all are by the
slaughter of the innocent civilians in Syria.
One of the options that I'd like to return to which has
been discussed today is whether or not we should try to arm
elements of the Syrian opposition. I think this too is a
difficult issue. Although, Mr. Secretary and General Dempsey,
you both responded to a question from Senator Graham that you
don't think al Qaeda's the ultimate victor, if you will, once
the regime falls. When Secretary Clinton testified at a House
hearing last week, she raised the question of, if we arm, who
are we arming? She specifically noted that Zawahiri of al Qaeda
is backing the Syrian opposition.
Her comment recalled to me the situation in Afghanistan,
where some of the groups that we armed in the 1980s are now
some of the same people who are attacking American soldiers
today, perhaps using some of those same arms.
So, General, if the United States or another country or
even an international coalition chose to arm opposition groups
in Syria, what's your assessment of the risk that we might be
taking that we could end up arming terrorist groups or other
enemies that are hostile to the United States or to Israel or
to other allies in the region?
General Dempsey. If you sense any reluctance on my part at
this point, it's because I can't get my intellect around that
risk. I just can't understand it yet. But I will tell you that
the President's been very directive with the intelligence
community that that's what has to happen, that we have to be
able to understand the opposition. To the extent we can, we
should help it coalesce into something that's understandable
and definable, coherent enough. Then if we ever do reach a
decision to arm the opposition, it just can't simply be arming
them without any command and control, without any
communications, because then it becomes a roving band of
rebels, and I think we can do better than that. But we're not
there right now.
Senator Collins. Secretary Panetta?
Secretary Panetta. Senator, one thing we found in this
region of the world is that once you provide these arms, there
are no boundaries as to where they can wind up. We saw that
happen in Libya and we are seeing evidence of some of the
weapons used there popping up in the Sinai and elsewhere. If we
provide arms in Syria, we have to have some sense that they
aren't just automatically going to wind up going to Hezbollah,
going to Hamas, going to al Qaeda, going to other groups that
would then use those weapons for other purposes.
Senator Collins. I think that's an extremely difficult
issue as we look at whether or not to encourage the provision
of arms or to provide arms ourselves.
Senator Shaheen and I have been working on the MANPADS
issue with Libya. We've been very concerned about that. As you
say, the situation in Syria makes the Libyan situation pale by
comparison, plus Syria has, as I understand it, large
stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons as well. So it's
a very difficult issue.
I want to get your assessment of the NATO Secretary
General's comment last week when he said that NATO would not
get involved in Syria because western assistance would be
insufficient to solve the crisis. He said that: ``NATO could
not bring about a sustainable solution to the problem,'' and
instead he advocated for an Arab League-led effort to the
crisis.
First, I would ask what your general reaction to the
Secretary General's statement was, Mr. Secretary. Second, can
we expect military and humanitarian assistance from the Arab
League?
Secretary Panetta. First of all, I understand his concerns
about the situation in Syria from a military perspective,
because we share some of the same concerns. At the same time, I
think that NATO in the very least ought to take a look at the
situation there and determine whether or not they could play an
important role there.
The fact is, when you look at Libya, even though NATO was
there, we had partners in the Arab community that joined that
coalition that were very helpful to the operation there. It's
that kind of coalition that can work very effectively.
Turning to the Arab League, the Arab League obviously is
working to try to develop an approach here. Individual nations
are looking at different ways to try to provide assistance of
one kind or another. But the Arab League itself doesn't have
the capability that NATO has to be able to engage militarily,
if necessary.
Senator Collins. I was in Turkey recently and obviously
Turkey historically had good relationships with Syria, but the
Prime Minister has been very strong in calling for Assad to
step aside and indeed has provided sanctuary for the FSA within
its borders. What advice are we getting from the Turks on what
approach we should be taking towards Syria? Are there
conversations ongoing with Turkey?
Secretary Panetta. Yes, there are. Turkey has actually
exercised very responsible leadership with regards to the
issue. Obviously, they have a direct concern because it is a
border country, but they have called for Assad to step down. We
have engaged with them on consultation with regards to the
concern over the chemical and biological sites that are located
there, and we're continuing to consult with them with regards
to refugees as well.
But the answer to your question is that Turkey is playing a
very responsible role in dealing with this issue.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, would you allow me one very quick final
question?
Chairman Levin. Yes, please.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
General Dempsey, is Iraq playing a positive role in
actually interdicting the transshipment of supplies,
ammunition, and weapons? It's really straddling the
communications and transportation lines between the two
countries.
General Dempsey. Iraq has done two things that I view as
quite positive. One was, as the Secretary mentioned, the
statement that they too now advocate Assad stepping down. So
that's on the political side.
On the issue of Iranian shipments crossing through their
air space, they have, in fact, demarched Iran to cease doing
that. They have requested--remember now, they don't have the
ability to control their air space. They can't interdict anyone
crossing it. But they have on more than one occasion insisted
that Iranian air flights across Iraq would land to be
inspected, and at their insistence once that occurred the
flights were delayed and in some cases we believe to allow the
offloading of the shipment, so that it wasn't identified when
it landed in Iraq.
So they are, they are trying. But again, they don't have
much capability to do anything beyond diplomatic engagement.
Senator Collins. Thank you both.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Collins.
We're now going to move directly to SVC-217 in the Capitol
Visitor Center for our closed session. Thank you both. This
hearing stands adjourned.
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Claire McCaskill
SYRIAN WEAPONS
1. Senator McCaskill. General Dempsey, the outcome of the current
conflict in Syria will have strategic repercussions throughout the
region. We know the Syrian regime has a substantial chemical-biological
weapons capability, a significant integrated air defense system,
thousands of shoulder-launched anti-air missiles, and a wholly
unsustainable political hierarchy. The Syrian security situation
continues to deteriorate as the Assad regime escalates the level of
lethal force employed upon its own people. As a result, the regime is
battling for its survival against a popular uprising, raising the
prospect of a civil war. Also, according to your testimony, the options
available to address the situation are extremely challenging. Based on
our intelligence of the make-up of the opposition, would it be possible
for the international community to provide arms to the rebels without
running the risk that those weapons could fall into the hands of al
Qaeda forces operating in Syria?
General Dempsey. Based on our understanding of the armed Syrian
opposition and deteriorating economic conditions inside Syria, it would
be impossible to eliminate the risk of foreign-provided weapons falling
into the hands of any of the various extremist groups operating inside
Syria, to include al Qaeda. Although al Qaeda is operating in Syria,
our assessment is that the opposition forces may be unaware that they
have al Qaeda cells in their midst. The international community could
certainly take a variety of actions to ensure that weapons are
initially delivered to the ``right'' opposition forces. However, the
nature of the fight and the lack of organization and cohesion among the
opposition forces could lead to weapons finding their way into the
wrong hands.
2. Senator McCaskill. General Dempsey, what are the most
significant risks of providing arms to the Syrian opposition?
General Dempsey. A significant risk is that foreign-provided arms
might fall into the hands of any of the various extremist organizations
that are currently operating in and around Syria. Such groups,
including al Qaeda, seek to exploit deteriorating security conditions
in Syria, exacerbate sectarian tensions, and threaten U.S. interests by
destabilizing our allies in neighboring countries. An additional
concern is that those weapons might empower elements of the opposition
who do not share our interests in a democratic, pluralistic, and
inclusive Syria that respects the rights of Syria's substantial
minority communities. Finally, there is a substantial risk that better
armed opposition elements operating independently of any political
process would simply increase levels of violence in Syria and further
inflame sectarian tensions--making any eventual political
reconciliation that much harder to achieve.
3. Senator McCaskill. General Dempsey, what other options should
the international community consider that would reduce the chance of
providing support to groups that run counter to U.S. security
interests, such as al Qaeda, while still applying pressure against the
Assad regime?
General Dempsey. The United States is working with the
international community to increase pressure against the Assad regime
and all options remain on the table. Currently, the Assad regime is
conflating the opposition's use of force with al Qaeda-type terrorist
attacks in order to discredit the opposition and promote a self-serving
narrative that regime forces are actually defending--rather than
oppressing--Syria's people. We are also aware of violent extremist
intentions to exploit any security vacuum in Syria to further their own
political objectives. Consequently, I believe the international
community should exhaust all options for facilitating a managed
political transition in Syria before seeking to effect such a
transition via military means.
4. Senator McCaskill. General Dempsey, should the Syrian regime
collapse, have precautions been taken or are there plans in place to
ensure that the Syrian stockpile of chemical-biological weapons will
not fall into the hands of groups that oppose U.S. interests?
General Dempsey. Yes. We have a plan in place that covers a wide
range of potential scenarios and provides options to address those
scenarios. We also continue to work with our allies and regional
partners to share information and coordinate activities. The United
States and our allies are closely watching the security and disposition
of Syria's unconventional weapons.
5. Senator McCaskill. General Dempsey, if the United States decided
to support airstrikes on Syria, how much of a risk does the air defense
system and anti-air missiles pose to our aircraft?
General Dempsey. [Deleted.]
6. Senator McCaskill. General Dempsey, can we mitigate the risk
posed to our aircraft by the Syrian air defense system and anti-air
missiles?
General Dempsey. We can best mitigate the risk posed to our
aircraft from these systems by destroying them. Any other course of
action would result in an enduring risk to our aircraft. Destruction
would require attacking surface-to-air missile (SAM) launchers, radars,
and their command and control. Mobile SAM systems would be challenging
and would require our aircraft to rely heavily on onboard defensive
systems and tactics for protection until the mobile SAMs were engaged.
With the large number of mobile SAMs in Syria, it will be challenging
to ensure we have destroyed every mobile SAM.
Attacking mobile SAM systems may provoke retaliation in the form of
ballistic missile attacks on U.S. forces or allies and risk widening
the conflict. There is the possibility of collateral damage if targeted
SAM sites are located in populated areas. However, a sustained air
presence over Syria to protect humanitarian corridors or establish a
no-fly zone would require a sustained air campaign to defeat the
integrated air defense systems.
SYRIAN REGIME CHANGE
7. Senator McCaskill. General Dempsey, is it reasonable to think
that if the Assad regime collapses, with or without U.S. assistance,
that the Syrian Government that arises after the collapse will
cooperate with the United States and the international community?
General Dempsey. Depending on how long it takes for the Assad
regime to collapse, and how much damage is done to the multi-
confessional fabric of Syrian society during the process, it is
possible that no cohesive Syrian Government will emerge with which the
United States and international community could cooperate. If the Assad
regime were replaced by a government that manages to maintain Syria's
national unity such a government might be inclined to cooperate with
the international community in exchange for economic and security
assistance.
8. Senator McCaskill. General Dempsey, what players already exist
in Syria that will almost certainly vie for power if the Assad regime
collapses?
General Dempsey. Information on opposition groups operating inside
Syria's cities and villages is limited, and it cannot be ruled out that
local leaders and groups, of which we currently know little, could
emerge to compete for power should the Assad regime fall. Likewise, the
means by which Assad is eventually removed will have an impact on who
is best positioned to compete for power. If Assad is removed through
military force, the armed groups responsible for his overthrow are
likely to demand the largest share of power in a post-Assad Syria.
If the conflict in Syria is settled peacefully or through
negotiations, the groups best placed to vie for power are senior
members of the Syrian National Council, the Free Syrian Army (FSA), the
Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, National Coordination Board, Local
Coordination Committees, Kurdish groups, the Sunni business class, or
various current regime officials.
9. Senator McCaskill. General Dempsey, are these players friendly
to the United States?
General Dempsey. Most elements of Syrian political and military
opposition are actively seeking foreign support and would welcome
financial or material assistance from the United States. It is not yet
clear what a post-Assad Government, could look like or what its
international relations priorities would be.
Much of the leadership of the Syrian National Council would welcome
friendly relations with the United States. There is little information
on the FSA's views of the United States. Additionally, it is too soon
to predict what position the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood would take on
improving relations with the United States.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Roger F.Wicker
ROLE OF NATO IN SYRIA
10. Senator Wicker. Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey, the
March edition of Foreign Affairs contains an essay by North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) Ambassador Ivo Daalder and NATO Supreme
Allied Commander Stavridis, titled: ``NATO's Victory in Libya''. This
piece highlights the successes and lessons learned from Operation
Odyssey Dawn. The U.S. and NATO intervention in Libya serves very much
as an exemplar for similar intervention in Syria. Their essay
explicitly notes that: ``When a group of countries wants to launch a
joint intervention as a coalition--which confers political legitimacy--
only NATO can provide the common command structure and capabilities
necessary to plan and execute complex operations. Multilateral
coalitions built on an as-needed basis, by contrast, have no common
doctrine for conducting military operations, no common capabilities or
command structure for quickly integrating national forces into a
cohesive campaign, and no standing mechanisms for debating and then
deciding on an agreed course of action.'' Have you had any discussions
or consultations with our NATO allies on contingency planning regarding
Syria?
Secretary Panetta. First, I would like to emphasize that the United
States is committed to bringing an end to the atrocities perpetuated by
the Assad regime as soon as possible. Our focus has been and continues
to be on diplomatic and political approaches to this situation, rather
than military intervention. But we have not ruled out any course of
action. We remain engaged with our allies and partners as we determine
how best to resolve the crisis in Syria.
We have not started planning within NATO for military contingency
operations. For NATO to take action, including formal military
planning, all 28 members must agree to do so. As we saw in Libya, many
allies would be hesitant to commit NATO as an organization to intervene
militarily in Syria without clear support from countries in the region
and a proper international legal basis, such as a Chapter VII U.N.
Security Council Resolution (UNSCR).
In the case of Syria, a consensus for military intervention does
not exist at this time in the Arab League, the U.N. Security Council,
or NATO. There are also concerns about the effect of military
intervention on Syria's neighbors, potential refugee flows across the
borders with Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon, and the possibility that
violence may spread into these countries or along Israel's borders.
Although the objective of protecting civilians and supporting
universal human rights are similar in these two cases, we do not
believe the same means employed in Libya are available or advisable at
the current time in Syria. Several factors--including demographic,
ethnic, geographic, religious, and military capability--distinguish the
challenges posed by the situation in Syria, as compared to the
situation in Libya prior to Operation Odyssey Dawn. On February 29,
2012, NATO Security General Rasmussen stated: ``We haven't had any
discussions in NATO about a NATO role in Syria and I don't envision
such a role for the alliance,'' and that ``Syria is ethnically,
politically, religiously much more complicated than Libya. This is the
reason why the right way forward is different.'' Likewise, it is
important to note that the Syrian regime has approximately five times
more sophisticated air defense systems than existed in Libya, covering
one-fifth of the terrain, in addition to much larger conventional and
chemical weapons stockpiles.
The U.S. Government continues to pursue a range of non-military
options, such as increased sanctions, to increase pressure on the
Syrian regime, in addition to our work at the U.N. Security Council and
with our international partners, including the Arab League and U.N.-
Arab League Envoy to Syria, Kofi Annan. As I noted, we are committed to
bringing an end to the atrocities perpetuated by the Assad regime as
soon as possible.
General Dempsey. I have discussed the current situation in Syria
with some NATO allies. However, we have not discussed contingency
planning with any other members of NATO. To date, NATO has not
discussed any possible future role that the alliance could play with
regard to the situation in Syria.
11. Senator Wicker. Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey, the Gulf
Cooperation Council (GCC) has increased their rhetoric about arming the
Syrian opposition forces. What options exist for NATO and the GCC to
expedite arms assistance to the Syrian opposition?
Secretary Panetta. In order for NATO to take action, all 28 members
must agree to do so. Many allies would be hesitant to commit NATO as an
organization to intervene militarily in Syria, without clear support
from countries in the region and a proper international legal basis,
such as a Chapter VII UNSCR. In addition, NATO, as an organization,
does not provide arms to any nation or opposition entity.
GCC member states have offered critical support and participation
in international efforts to stop the violence in Syria, and to develop
a political solution to the crisis. Although we continue to assess
options and the feasibility of providing security assistance to the
Syrian opposition, we do not believe it is appropriate to provide
lethal assistance, at this time. We encourage the GCC and other
interested parties to use diplomatic influence and resources to
pressure the Assad regime and encourage the Syrian opposition to halt
violence, and to begin the orderly transition to democracy.
General Dempsey. To date, NATO has not discussed any possible
future role that the alliance could play with regard to situation in
Syria. The provision of lethal aid to the opposition is problematic for
a variety of reasons to include: opposition unity and vetting,
achieving the requisite legal basis to preclude lethal aid, and
avoiding transfers to various extremist organizations operating within
Syria. Some members of the GCC have publically advocated providing arms
to the Syrian opposition but this is presently a problematic option for
the United States. We are not aware of any NATO options to expedite
arms assistance to the Syrian opposition.
12. Senator Wicker. Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey, similar
to our efforts in Libya, do you currently believe there is sufficient
consensus within NATO to support alliance-led airstrikes to establish
humanitarian safe-havens for civilians in Syria?
Secretary Panetta. I do not believe there is sufficient consensus
at this time.
For NATO to take action, all 28 members must agree to do so. As we
saw in Libya, many allies would be hesitant to commit NATO as an
organization to intervene militarily in Syria without clear support
from countries in the region and a proper international legal basis,
such as a Chapter VII UNSCR.
General Dempsey. Currently, I do not believe there is consensus
within NATO for such action. To date, NATO has not discussed any
possible future role that the alliance could play with regard to the
situation in Syria.
SYRIAN REFUGEES
13. Senator Wicker. Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey, on
Monday, March 5, 2012, the Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reported that over 2,000 Syrian
refugees--including Christians--have fled to border towns in Southern
Syria in the hopes of crossing to Lebanon. For those who make it to
Lebanon, many Syrian refugees fear agents from their own country's
security services. Anecdotal stories have circulated of kidnappings and
collaboration between Lebanese and Syrian security forces. Turkey says
it hosts more than 11,000 Syrians in camps along the border with Syria,
including more than 1,000 who crossed in the last month. Jordan has
more than 80,000 Syrian refugees, according to the government. About
100 have entered Jordan in the last 2 days. I continue to be concerned
about the crisis regarding Syrian refugees seeking refuge in Lebanon,
Jordan, and Turkey. For instance, our NATO ally Turkey is hosting over
11,000 Syrian refugees while Jordan is reportedly hosting over 80,000
Syrian refugees. What is the Department of Defense (DOD) prepared to do
in terms of food or logistical assistance to help address this regional
refugee crisis in the Levant?
Secretary Panetta. The State Department and USAID are the lead U.S.
Government agencies for foreign humanitarian assistance. They are
providing substantial support to the humanitarian relief effort in
Syria and the surrounding countries through a number of humanitarian
organizations.
It is DOD's job to ensure the President has a range of viable
options at his disposal, and that we have fully considered all
contingencies. This does not imply, however, an intent or
recommendation to execute any particular contingency plan.
General Dempsey. DOD is actively engaged with both our allies and
the U.S. Government interagency to evaluate and address the refugee
situation. Recent bilateral discussions with both Turkey and Jordan
included the refugee concern and all parties continue to share
information related to this topic. U.S. interagency, including DOD,
Department of State, USAID and other elements continue to plan for
assistance as it may be required to support the UNHCR and related
efforts on the ground within the region. UNHCR leader Valerie Amos
assessed the situation on the ground concurrently with U.N. envoy Kofi
Annan's visit to Syria and the United States continues to fully support
UNHCR efforts on refugees throughout the region.
SYRIAN DEPENDENCY ON RUSSIA
14. Senator Wicker. Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey, it is no
surprise given Vladimir Putin's so-called presidential victory over the
weekend that Russia continues to be an ardent supporter of the Syrian
regime's survival. Russia and China have blocked measures in October
and February supporting an Arab League-drafted transition plan.
According to the Moscow Times, Russia's current economic investment in
Syria totaled $19.4 billion in 2009. In recent years Syria purchased
modern anti-tank and anti-air missile systems from Russia. In 2008,
Syria agreed to purchase advanced fighters, air-defense systems,
tactical missile systems, and submarines from Russia. These sales are
not limited to equipment and also extend to personnel training and
other activities. As such, what is the level of Syria's economic and
military dependency on Russia for towards the Assad regime's survival?
Secretary Panetta. Russia is the largest supplier of military
equipment to Syria, and is also an important economic partner.
Unfortunately, Russia continues to supply weapons to Syria. The United
States has repeatedly raised our concerns regarding Russia's decision
to continue these weapons deliveries. However, Assad's survival does
not solely hinge on further Russian military or financial aid. Russian
political support for Syria, particularly in the U.N. Security Council,
has shielded Syria from international efforts to stop the violence and
to hold the Assad regime accountable. However, we have recently been
encouraged by Russian support for U.N.-Arab League envoy to Syria, Kofi
Annan.
General Dempsey. The survival of the Syrian regime is not
ultimately contingent on Russian financial and military support.
However, this support does place Damascus in a more confident position
when attempting to weather unrest and the regime continues to value
Russia as one of its most important foreign allies. Russian top cover
at the U.N. has further solidified the regime's intransigence while
continued arms supplies, including advanced defensive systems, likely
bolster Damascus' confidence it can deter foreign military
intervention.
Beyond the arms trade, Russian companies have made a number of
investments in Syria, including some from Russia's powerful energy
sector, such as a natural gas production facility and pipeline. Russia
exported $1.1 billion worth of goods to Syria in 2010, about 6.3
percent of Syria's imports.
15. Senator Wicker. Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey, can you
elaborate on the ongoing military-to-military cooperation between Syria
and Russia?
Secretary Panetta. Syria continues to be one of Russia's closest
military partners in the Middle East, and Russia remains Syria's
largest supplier of military equipment. Despite the international
condemnation of Assad's harsh crackdown on Syria's own population,
Russian arms deliveries continue. Russia has military advisors in Syria
and a naval logistics base in the Syrian Port of Tartus. The United
States has repeatedly raised our concerns regarding the continued
deliveries of weapons to Syria and we will continue to do so as long as
the violence continues and Assad remains in power.
General Dempsey. [Deleted.]
16. Senator Wicker. What level of intelligence cooperation do you
believe exists between the Syrian and Russian security services?
Secretary Panetta. [Deleted.]
General Dempsey. [Deleted.]
IRANIAN INFLUENCE IN SYRIA
17. Senator Wicker. Secretary Panetta, in late January 2012,
General Qassem Soleimani, commander of the Iranian Quds Force (an elite
unit of Iran's Revolutionary Guards), visited the Syrian capital. This
visit represents the most prominent signs of Iran's assistance to
Syria, including military equipment. Additionally, recently General
Mattis, while describing a deteriorating situation in Syria, stated
that it was fueled in part by Iran. In what capacity has Iran and/or al
Qaeda contributed to these horrific events taking place in Syria?
Secretary Panetta. [Deleted.]
18. Senator Wicker. Secretary Panetta, would a collapse of
President Assad's rule likely end Iran's cozy ties with Syria and
potentially redraw the Mideast's pathways of influence?
Secretary Panetta. [Deleted.]
19. Senator Wicker. Secretary Panetta, would the Assad regime's
demise choke off aid to Tehran's main anti-Israel faction, Hezbollah in
Lebanon?
Secretary Panetta. [Deleted.]
SYRIAN FORCES
20. Senator Wicker. General Dempsey, Syrian forces reportedly
executed 47 Syrian soldiers who tried to defect in the city of Idlib
just this past week. The regime of President Assad is currently beset
by an armed insurgency mounted by the FSA. The FSA, which consists of
some 20,000 army defectors armed as light infantry, has mounted
numerous lethal ambushes and hit-and-run raids on loyalist troops. What
is your assessment of the Syrian military and what is the level of
loyalty towards Assad?
General Dempsey. The Syrian military maintains a force of over
300,000 Active Duty personnel and a robust Reserve Duty Force, which
can be drawn upon at need. The majority of Syria's armed forces remain
loyal to Assad. The Syrian military has been beset by regular
defections of soldiers since unrest began, but overall its capabilities
remain strong. To date, neither senior military officers nor members of
Assad's inner circle have defected. The highest ranking defectors to
date have held the rank of brigadier general.
21. Senator Wicker. General Dempsey, what is your opinion on the
capabilities of the FSA?
General Dempsey. The capabilities of the FSA have steadily grown in
recent months; however, the organization remains beset by logistical
shortfalls and lack of unity among its leadership.
The ability, or inability, of the FSA to exercise operational
control over the armed opposition bears continued monitoring. In recent
months, the FSA has issued several calls for the armed opposition
operating within Syria to unite under the FSA's banner, suggesting the
group has had difficulties exercising control over disparate armed
groups throughout Syria.
FSA members are actively seeking military aid from foreign
sponsors, including ammunition, small arms, and advanced weapons
systems.
22. Senator Wicker. General Dempsey, what can the United States and
NATO do to help these opposition forces?
General Dempsey. Alliance political leaders must answer the
question regarding what NATO can do to help the opposition forces.
However, to date, NATO has not discussed any possible future role that
the alliance could play with regard to helping the opposition forces in
Syria.
[Whereupon, at 11:32 a.m., the committee adjourned.]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
