Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, made the following opening remarks at the full committee hearing titled "U.S. Strategy for Syria and Iraq and its Implications for the Region:”
"The Committee meets today to hear testimony from the Secretary and the Chairman on our strategy against ISIS and the implications for the Middle East. Today is the first hearing we have had with Secretary Carter and Chairman Dunford together in their current roles, and I think it is appropriate that it be on this topic which is foremost on the minds of the American people. Thank you both for being here.
In all that has been written and said about ISIS since the Paris attacks, there seems to be widespread consensus on at least three points:
1. ISIS presents a significant threat to the United States.
2. The approach we have used to degrade and destroy ISIS is inadequate to meet the threat.
3. A different approach, a greater effort is required.
While in many ways ISIS is more capable than al Qaeda, it is certainly not invincible. Yet, when we tie our own hands and use half-measures against them, it enhances their prestige and aids their cause.
As Dr. Henry Kissinger wrote six weeks ago, 'The current inconclusive U.S. military effort risks serving as a recruitment vehicle for ISIS as having stood up to American might.'
And David Ignatius, more recently, 'But the halfway measures taken by the U.S. thus far have only helped the jihadists.'
The other consequence of such half measures is that it adds to the doubts that allies or potential allies have about our commitment and about our willingness to see the mission through. Hank Crumpton, who led CIA’s Afghanistan campaign after 9/11, wrote about ISIS earlier this year, '. . . [M]any have lost faith in U.S. leadership. The perception of U.S. weakness and lack of strategic direction dissuades allies from policy and intelligence cooperation.'
I believe that a greater military effort must be run by the military. Secretary Carter, all three of your Obama Administration predecessors have complained openly about White House aides micromanaging military operations. I myself have heard from service members in the field about such instances which would have been unthinkable at any other time in history.
If we are going to be serious against ISIS, the President needs to assign the military a clear mission and then allow them to carry it out. I believe there should be a four star headquarters in the region that is fully empowered to take the steps necessary to degrade ISIS now. Former Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Mike Vickers made good sense to me when he wrote ten days ago, “Whatever we would do if ISIL made good on its threat to attack Washington, D.C. and New York, we should instead do now, before the attack occurs.”
Now maybe Kissinger, Ignatius, Crumpton, and Vickers are wrong and the President has things contained and well in hand. But I don’t think so.
We are looking to you two gentlemen, not to repeat White House talking points, but to give us your best professional and military judgments on what is required to actually degrade and defeat this enemy and to protect our people."
