    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                             [H.A.S.C. No. 115-74]

           TERRORISM AND IRAN: DEFENSE CHALLENGES IN THE MIDDLE EAST

                                   __________

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                  HEARING HELD

                               FEBRUARY 27, 2018

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    28-997                     WASHINGTON : 2019

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                         One Hundred Fifteenth Congress

                 WILLIAM M. ``MAC'' THORNBERRY, Texas, Chairman

    WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina      ADAM SMITH, Washington
    JOE WILSON, South Carolina           ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
    FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey        SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
    ROB BISHOP, Utah                     JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
    MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio              RICK LARSEN, Washington
    MIKE ROGERS, Alabama                 JIM COOPER, Tennessee
    BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania           MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
    K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas            JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
    DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado               NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
    ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia          JOHN GARAMENDI, California
    DUNCAN HUNTER, California            JACKIE SPEIER, California
    MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado               MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
    VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri             TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
    AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia                BETO O'ROURKE, Texas
    MO BROOKS, Alabama                   DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
    PAUL COOK, California                RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona
    JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma            SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
    BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio               COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
    BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama               CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire
    SAM GRAVES, Missouri                 JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
    ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York          A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
    MARTHA McSALLY, Arizona              SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
    STEPHEN KNIGHT, California           ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
    STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma              STEPHANIE N. MURPHY, Florida
    SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          RO KHANNA, California
    RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana         TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
    TRENT KELLY, Mississippi             THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York
    MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin            JIMMY PANETTA, California
    MATT GAETZ, Florida
    DON BACON, Nebraska
    JIM BANKS, Indiana
    LIZ CHENEY, Wyoming
    JODY B. HICE, Georgia

                          Jen Stewart, Staff Director
                    Jennifer Bird, Professional Staff Member
                          William S. Johnson, Counsel
                             Britton Burkett, Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                  STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

    Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative from California, Committee
      on Armed Services..............................................     2
    Thornberry, Hon. William M. ``Mac,'' a Representative from Texas,
      Chairman, Committee on Armed Services..........................     1

                                   WITNESSES

    Votel, GEN Joseph L., USA, Commander, U.S. Central Command.......     2

                                    APPENDIX

    Prepared Statements:

        Smith, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Washington, Ranking
          Member, Committee on Armed Services........................    48
        Thornberry, Hon. William M. ``Mac''..........................    47
        Votel, GEN Joseph L..........................................    50

    Documents Submitted for the Record:

        [There were no Documents submitted.]

    Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

        [There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.]

    Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

        Mr. Cook.....................................................    99
        Mr. O'Rourke.................................................    99
        Ms. Stefanik.................................................    99
        Ms. Tsongas..................................................    99

    .
           TERRORISM AND IRAN: DEFENSE CHALLENGES IN THE MIDDLE EAST

                                  ----------

                              House of Representatives,
                                   Committee on Armed Services,
                            Washington, DC, Tuesday, February 27, 2018.
        The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room
    2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. William M. ``Mac''
    Thornberry (chairman of the committee) presiding.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM M. ``MAC'' THORNBERRY, A
        REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED
                                SERVICES

        The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
        We welcome back to the committee the commander of the U.S.
    Central Command, General Joseph Votel. We are particularly
    interested in hearing General Votel's views on the changes that
    the new National Defense Strategy brings to his area of
    responsibility.
        The strategy's emphasis on strategic competition has
    implications for a region where Russian influence and presence
    is much greater now than it was before the Syrian conflict
    began, a region that is one of the targets of the Chinese
    whole-of-nation effort to increase its sway, and a region where
    the Iranians are aggressively expanding its wide arc of control
    to the detriment of its neighbors.
        These developments and the continuing threat of terrorism
    in and emanating from the CENTCOM [U.S. Central Command]
    region, suggests that the United States cannot afford to remove
    our attention or our presence from this vital area.
    Fortunately, we have a number of strong allies and partners
    that are able and willing to actively defend our joint
    interests, but as we have painfully learned in recent years,
    there is simply no substitute for the United States.
        When we withdraw prematurely, the world, including the
    threats to our homeland, can rapidly grow more dangerous. The
    challenge, however, is that CENTCOM has received the lion's
    share of military resources for some time. And while it is
    important to remain, we have to be more active in other vital
    areas of the world at the same time. The recent budget
    agreement helps, but it will take time to rebuild and field
    needed capability. In these circumstances, General Votel has
    his hands full in making sure that U.S. national security is
    protected.
        Let me yield to the acting ranking member, the gentlelady
    from California, Mrs. Davis.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Thornberry can be found in
    the Appendix on page 47.]

        STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
                CALIFORNIA, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

        Mrs. Davis. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I ask unanimous consent that the ranking member's statement
    be entered into the record.
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Smith can be found in the
    Appendix on page 48.]
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
        And I would also like to welcome General Votel and thank
    him for appearing today.
        The Central Command area of responsibility remains critical
    to our national interests, and we have to maintain a focus on
    security in the region. Reports of continuing military progress
    in the counter-ISIS [Islamic State of Iraq and Syria] campaign
    are encouraging, but military achievements alone, as I think we
    all know, will not guarantee long-term success. We must work
    with the international community and employ a whole-of-
    government approach to foster and to sustain political,
    economic, and social conditions to ensure long-term stability.
    We cannot allow the region to fall into violent extremism
    again. To truly defeat ISIS, we must be just as determined to
    secure a durable peace as we have been to achieve a decisive
    military victory.
        We have long sought a stable end state in Afghanistan. For
    more than 16 years, the United States has concentrated on
    eliminating terrorist threats while working closely with our
    allies and our partners to train, advise, and assist Afghan
    forces to secure the country. Despite significant progress,
    Afghan forces are still in need of assistance, so where are we
    headed?
        Although our commitments to oppose violent extremism in
    Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan are consuming, we must also remain
    alert to other regional security challenges. Despite an
    agreement regarding its nuclear program, Iran remains a
    designated state sponsor of terrorism, and it exerts
    destabilizing influence in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. We
    must deter Iran from precipitating conflict and dissuade it
    from engaging in malign activities. And we must also deter
    Russia that is increasingly involved in the region as well.
        Certainly a complex set of issues, General, and I look
    forward to your testimony. Thank you very much for joining us.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. General, without objection, your full written
    statement will be made part of the record. Welcome back. The
    floor is yours.

    STATEMENT OF GEN JOSEPH L. VOTEL, USA, COMMANDER, U.S. CENTRAL
                                COMMAND

        General Votel. Chairman Thornberry, Congresswoman Davis,
    distinguished members of the committee, good morning, and thank
    you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss the current
    posture and state of readiness of the United States Central
    Command.
        I come before you today on behalf of the over 80,000
    members of the command. It is a dedicated team of military
    service members and civilians, along with our coalition
    partners, representing 70 nations and 4 international
    organizations, many of whom are forward-deployed across some of
    the most dangerous areas in the world. They sacrifice and risk
    on a daily basis, in many cases for the benefit of not only
    American strategic interests, but also the world's.
        Our people are the very best at what they do, and they, and
    especially their families, deserve our admiration and
    gratitude. It is my sincere honor to lead and be a member of
    such a fine team of dedicated professionals.
        I am approaching the 2-year mark of my time in command.
    This period has been both incredibly challenging and immensely
    rewarding during what has arguably been one of the most
    volatile times in this complex region's history.
        It has been 11 months since I last appeared before this
    committee, and since then, we have made considerable military
    progress in Iraq and Syria, Afghanistan, Egypt, Lebanon, and
    the maritime environment. However, we remain very clear-eyed
    regarding both the permanence of that progress and the
    challenges that we face in the future.
        In the past year, we have achieved incredible success
    against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. The Iraqi security forces and
    Syrian Democratic Forces are operating at their most effective
    levels since Operation Inherent Resolve began, and now, over 98
    percent of the territory previously held by ISIS in Iraq and
    Syria is no longer under their control. The destruction of the
    ISIS physical caliphate is imminent, and millions of displaced
    persons are returning home and beginning the long process of
    rebuilding. Now we must consolidate our gains by investing in
    the security forces' relationships and capabilities that will
    hold the territory and keep ISIS from returning.
        Based upon that progress, CENTCOM is conducting an
    operational alignment and rebalancing effort to achieve three
    specific goals. The first goal is to complete major combat
    operations in Iraq and Syria and bring the defeat-ISIS campaign
    to a responsible close. Military success in the campaign up to
    this point presents us an opportunity to reposition some of our
    resources from Iraq and Syria to Afghanistan in a manner that
    keeps the pressure on ISIS, but also sets us up to break the
    stalemate in Afghanistan.
        We retain sufficient capability to continue our efforts
    against ISIS despite the increasingly complex situation across
    Syria and especially in the northwest province of Afrin. We are
    fully engaged with our mission partners and the Department of
    State to carefully balance our objectives. Our partners on the
    ground in Syria have advanced us a long way towards our
    objectives, and we will stick with them through the completion
    of this fight. In Iraq, the Iraqi security forces are rapidly
    consolidating gains and preparing to support elections later
    this spring.
        The second goal is to prioritize the implementation of the
    South Asia strategy in Afghanistan. This strategy reaffirms the
    U.S. Government's enduring commitment to Afghanistan by
    reinforcing the two complementary military missions: The NATO
    [North Atlantic Treaty Organization]-led train, advise, and
    assist mission, and the U.S. counterterrorism mission. We are
    making sure that, with our support, the Afghan National Defense
    and Security Forces are well-postured to begin operations to
    seize the initiative, expand population control, and secure
    credible elections.
        Part and parcel of this effort is our regionalized approach
    to engage all countries with a stake in Afghanistan's
    stability, especially Pakistan. Our goal here is to develop a
    productive and trustful relationship that benefits both of our
    militaries and supports our objectives in the region.
        The third goal is to ensure that we have aligned our
    military efforts with our broader interagency and international
    efforts to neutralize, counterbalance, and shape the
    destabilizing impact that Iran has across the region. Make no
    mistake, while we continue to confront the scourge of
    terrorism, Iran's malign activities across the region pose a
    long-term threat to stability in this part of the world.
        We view ourselves, the military, as supporting the many
    other and more effective resources and capabilities of the U.S.
    Government and its partners in this endeavor. The recently
    published National Defense Strategy rightly identifies the
    resurgence of great power competition as our principal national
    security challenge, and we in CENTCOM see the effects of that
    competition throughout the region.
        Russia's support of the Assad regime has not only propped
    him up, but has also added complexity to the defeat-ISIS
    campaign. Diplomatically and militarily, Moscow plays both
    arsonist and firefighter, fueling tensions among all parties in
    Syria, the Syrian regime, Iran, Turkey, the Syrian Democratic
    Forces, the United States, and other coalition partners, then
    serving as an arbiter to resolve disputes attempting to
    undermine and weaken each party's bargaining positions.
        Despite the key role that our partners on the ground, the
    Syrian Democratic Forces, and the coalition have played in
    dealing defeat to ISIS, Russia has placed this progress at risk
    with their activities, which are not focused on defeating ISIS
    but, rather, on preserving their own influence and control over
    the outcome of the situation. It is clear that Russia's
    interests in Syria are Russia's interests, and not those of the
    wider international community.
        China is pursuing long-term, steady economic growth in the
    region through its One Belt, One Road policy, but it is also
    improving its military posture by connecting ports, such as
    Gwadar in Pakistan, with its first overseas military base in
    Djibouti, adjacent to the critical Bab-el-Mandeb. While Beijing
    claims both locations support peacekeeping and humanitarian
    operations, the new military base and port bolsters China's
    force projection into the region.
        Both China and Russia seek to fill in perceived gaps in
    U.S. interests by increasing defense cooperation and sales of
    their equipment to our regional partners. They both are also
    cultivating multidimensional ties to Iran. The lifting of U.N.
    [United Nations] sanctions under the Joint Comprehensive Plan
    of Action [JCPOA] open the path for Iran to resume membership
    application to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
        In addition, Russia, supported by Iran, continues to
    bolster a friendly regime in Syria, attempt to limit our U.S.
    military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, and creates friction
    among NATO partners. Against this backdrop of increasing great
    power interaction are the enduring issues of the region:
    social, economic, and political challenges; high unemployment;
    falling oil prices; a youth bulge; large numbers of refugees
    and internally displaced persons; and long-standing border
    conflicts.
        We in CENTCOM stand ready with all of our partners to
    defend U.S. interests against these and other threats. Our
    strategic approach of preparing the environment, pursuing
    opportunities, and working to prevail wherever we can is
    working. We are postured for purpose, proactive in pursuing
    opportunities, and resolve to win.
        I would like to close by sharing three dynamics that we
    assess are essential to prevailing in this region. First, as I
    have previously testified, in the conduct of our campaigns in
    Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan, as well as our operations in
    places like Yemen, Lebanon, and Egypt, we have adopted a by,
    with, and through approach that places a heavy reliance on
    indigenous partner nation forces. Our partners do not always
    want us to solve their problems for them, so we enable them to
    stand on their own. And while this approach does present its
    own challenges and can be more time consuming, it provides
    local solutions to local problems. This approach is not without
    risk, as we are seeing unfold in Syria today. But in general,
    it is proving very effective and will likely pay significant
    dividends going forward.
        Secondly, successful pursuit of U.S. objectives in this
    region only comes from an integrated approach aligned with
    interorganizational partners. Defense of the Nation is a team
    sport. This applies not just within the command, but with our
    fellow combatant commands, our component commands, our
    established combined and joint task forces, the Central
    Region's 18 country teams, and other departments, agencies, and
    organizations of the U.S. Government who have provided
    unwavering support over almost two decades of persistent
    conflict.
        Our allies in the region and the wider international
    community are equally as critical to supporting our mission.
    They directly support the CENTCOM headquarters with more than
    200 foreign military officers from 49 nations, all of whom are
    part of the success of CENTCOM, and we are grateful for and
    largely depend upon their partnership. As the National Defense
    Strategy captures clearly, strengthening existing relationships
    and building new ones will be key to our future success. We are
    doing this in CENTCOM every day.
        Finally, we could not do what we do on a daily basis
    without the support of Congress, and by extension, the American
    people. We sincerely appreciate this committee's continued
    strong support for our operations, authorities, and resources,
    and especially the same to the services, Special Operations
    Command, and other defense agencies that we rely upon for our
    military wherewithal.
        Your support will remain important as we contend with what
    potentially are generational struggles to defend our homeland
    from the threats outlined in our National Defense Strategy.
    U.S. Government commitment to the CENTCOM area of
    responsibility [AOR] is more important now than ever. For our
    part, we will support the third pillar of the National Defense
    Strategy, business reform, by continuing to be good stewards of
    the resources and authorities that Congress provides us.
        To close, I want to once again thank the outstanding men
    and women who comprise the United States Central Command,
    easily our finest and most precious resource. They continue to
    make great sacrifices and contributions to ensure the command
    meets our strategic objectives and protects our Nation's
    interests. We must ensure they have everything they need to do
    their jobs as effectively and efficiently as possible.
        We are also keenly aware and grateful for the sacrifices
    made by our families. They are vital members of the team, and
    we could not accomplish our mission without them. They, too,
    make important contributions and tremendous sacrifices every
    day to support us. I thank them on behalf of the command and a
    grateful Nation.
        Thank you again, and I look forward to answering your
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of General Votel can be found in
    the Appendix on page 50.]
        The Chairman. Thank you, General.
        Let me remind members that immediately upon conclusion of
    this open hearing, we will regather with General Votel upstairs
    in a classified session. So be in touch to know exactly when
    this open hearing ends.
        Since General Votel and I have had a chance to visit
    recently, I am going to yield 5 minutes, initially, to the
    gentlelady from Wyoming, Ms. Cheney.
        Ms. Cheney. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
    General Votel, for your service and for being here today.
        I wanted to ask you to elaborate in particular on the
    threat from Iran. And, you know, one of the many grave flaws of
    the JCPOA is the fact that it failed to deal with Iran's
    ballistic missile threat. And we are now seeing across the
    region increasingly evidence that Iran is transferring
    ballistic missiles and other conventional equipment to its
    allies in the region. Can you talk about exactly what you are
    seeing in this regard and what the Department of Defense [DOD]
    is in a position to be able to do to defend us and our allies
    against that threat?
        General Votel. Thank you, Congresswoman. I think you have
    highlighted one of the principal concerns that we have, the
    increasing, not just quantity, but quality of their ballistic
    missiles, and the export and movement of those capabilities to
    other groups and locations around the region. Certainly, as we
    have seen with Ambassador Haley in her demonstration most
    recently with some of the items recovered from Saudi Arabia,
    these weapons pose the threat of widening the conflict out of
    Yemen, and, frankly, put our forces, our embassy in Riyadh, our
    forces in the United Arab Emirates, at risk, as well as our
    partners. So I think first and foremost about their threat is
    the quality and the quantity that they have been pursuing over
    the last several years, particularly with respect to this.
        Their direct introduction of asymmetric capabilities
    concerns me as we look at places like the Bab-el-Mandeb where
    we see the introduction of coastal defense cruise missiles,
    some that have been modified. We know these are not
    capabilities that the Houthis had, so they have been provided
    to them by someone. That someone is Iran. The presence of
    explosive boats, the increased presence of mines in this area
    are all very similar to the layered threat that Iran has posed
    in the Straits of Hormuz, and we hold them accountable for
    that. So that is a second aspect of this.
        The third, of course, is their continually changing power
    projection model, not only their own forces, but their proxies
    and the partners that they are attempting to create around the
    region. I think these all give us very significant concerns.
        With respect to your question about what we are doing, we
    are working with Saudi Arabia and some of our partners to
    ensure that they are optimizing their capabilities that they
    have, many of them U.S.-provided capabilities, to ensure that
    they can defend themselves. And I would report to you in this
    session that we are seeing some progress in that regard.
        Ms. Cheney. Thank you, General. And in respect to Syria,
    could you talk a little bit about, there have been reports that
    we have seen facilities, for example, being built in Syria,
    reports in open source, Iranian missile facilities. Obviously,
    the threat there is significant, not just to U.S. interests,
    but also to allies like Israel. And could you talk more about
    what we might be able to do, particularly on the ground in
    Syria, as we see the challenge of--we have been very effective
    against ISIS there, but, obviously, our interests are still
    significantly threatened given the failed state situation we
    are facing.
        General Votel. Thank you, Congresswoman. As you know,
    countering Iran is not one of the coalition missions in Syria.
    That said, I think one of the most effective things that we can
    do in this particular area is build strong relationships.
        Ms. Cheney. General, I am sorry, could you just--I
    understand it is not potentially formally part of the mission,
    but it seems to me if we are focused on countering Iran, we
    need to be doing it every place our interests are threatened.
        General Votel. Absolutely. And one of the key ways that we
    are doing that is through our strong relationships that we are
    building with the Government of Iraq military forces, that
    include, not only forces that are in the interior, but
    certainly along their border. Our strong relationship with the
    Syrian Democratic Forces in the east and in the northern part
    of the country puts us in a position where we can impede Iran's
    objectives of establishing lines of communication through these
    critical areas and trying to connect Tehran to Beirut, for
    example.
        So I think, first and foremost, some of these indirect
    things we are doing are very, very important to that. I think
    beyond that, I think also continuing to highlight and
    illuminate their activities is extraordinarily important so
    that they can be addressed, not just with military means, but
    certainly with the other means that are available to us across
    government.
        Ms. Cheney. Thank you very much.
        I will yield back the balance of my time and look forward
    to discussing this further in the closed session.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mrs. Davis.
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And General Votel,
    again, thank you for joining us.
        As you just mentioned, and certainly in your written
    statement, the National Defense Strategy stated that great
    power competition, not terrorism, is now the primary focus of
    U.S. national security. Could you elaborate for us on those
    comments, and also talk about the shift in this national
    strategy? How exactly will it impact CENTCOM? And what, if any,
    significant changes will actually materialize as a result of
    the shift? And how will Central Command's capacity to perform
    its mission be affected?
        General Votel. Well, thanks, Congresswoman. I think that,
    you know, the shifts that are outlined in the National Defense
    Strategy are things that will take place over time. And so, you
    know, one of the principal ways that we are trying to manage
    that, of course, is through the development of and continued
    relationship building that we have in place with partners in
    the region and continuing to strengthen those relationships.
        One of the things that we have learned through this by,
    with, and through approach is that we can do a lot through our
    partners by providing advice, by providing expertise in areas
    where we have experience, and we can do that with the smaller
    footprint and with the, you know, correspondingly smaller
    investment. So I think one of the principal ways that we will
    address this going forward is continuing to build on these
    relationships and continuing to empower our partners in the
    region.
        Mrs. Davis. Can you just speak to the key challenges in
    doing that?
        General Votel. Well, you know, I think, certainly, one of
    the key challenges will be making sure that we don't create the
    impression that we are abandoning CENTCOM. And this, of course,
    is a key talking--or the region. And so this, of course, is a
    key talking point, not only for me, but for all leaders that
    come in there. We recognize that the interest that we have, the
    national interest that we have in this region for preventing
    attacks on the homeland, for preventing proliferation of
    weapons of mass destruction, for ensuring freedom of navigation
    and commerce through the critical straits, for ensuring other
    countries can't destabilize, those are enduring interests that
    we will always have. And so this will always require us to
    continue to be engaged there to some aspect. But, of course,
    the Secretary will make decisions on shifting resources in
    accordance with the National Defense Strategy.
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you. You also talked about local
    solutions, and we know how critical that is, as you have just
    mentioned. I am wondering if you could also talk about the
    inclusion of women as a critical strategy that advances
    countering terrorism, national security, and democratization
    and economic and social development. Some of those programs
    have been successful, but there certainly is more to be done.
    How can we increase the effectiveness of these programs?
        General Votel. Well, I think the best way we can do it is
    by sharing our experiences with this. We learned by our
    inability to include women into many of our counterterrorism
    operations back in the beginning of these fights that we have
    been involved in, that we are missing 50 percent of the
    population in doing that. And when we began to introduce them
    into positions where they could have influence, we learned a
    lot from that. So I think one of the key things that we can do
    is continue to lead by example in this area and demonstrate how
    this is valued by us.
        We do see partners in the region doing this. The Afghans
    are doing this. The Iraqis are doing this. We certainly see
    this with the Syrian Democratic Forces that we are working with
    in Syria. And I would highlight to you that one of the
    principal commanders that they have, a very successful
    commander, is a female. And so it is very much recognized that
    contributions come from the entirety of the force.
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you. I appreciate that. I think that a
    number of us have participated in those efforts, and I hope
    that we can continue to do more of that. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Mr. Wilson.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        General Votel, recently, the United Nations released a
    remarkably gruesome report outlining North Korea's ongoing
    efforts to assist Syria building chemical weapons. This report
    states that North Korea has been shipping supplies to the
    Syrian Government, including acid-resistant tiles, valves, and
    thermometers. Additionally, North Korean missile technicians
    have been observed working at chemical weapons and missile
    facilities in Syria.
        Are you able to comment on the U.N. report? And if not,
    could you describe the malign and disruptive role North Korea
    currently plays in Syria and whether or not you see their role
    expanding in the coming years? Additionally, what is being done
    to disrupt this cooperation between the dictatorships of North
    Korea and the Syrian Government?
        General Votel. Congressman, I admit, I have not seen that
    report, so I can't comment specifically on it. Obviously, we
    are concerned about the proliferation of these type of weapons
    in Syria with a country that has demonstrated the intent to use
    them. So this will be an area that we will continue to pay
    close attention to.
        Mr. Wilson. And it is so important. I was actually
    pleasantly surprised that The New York Times covered it today.
    My experience with that newspaper is they frequently overlook
    threats to stability in the world, but I urge your
    consideration.
        Also, a primary concern for the long-term stability of the
    Middle East surrounds a return of defeated Islamic State
    fighters who are returning home from fighting in Iraq and
    Syria. An estimate from The Soufan Center and The Global
    Strategy Network have tracked 5,600 fighters who have returned
    to their home countries. Specifically, sadly, Turkey has 900
    returning and Saudi Arabia has 760 returning.
        Could you explain what threat the return of the defeated
    Islamic State fighters to their home country represents to the
    long-term stability in the region? And can you explain the
    proposed or ongoing efforts to work with ally nations in
    dealing with this flow of fighters?
        General Votel. Thank you, Congressman. Well, certainly,
    these fighters that are able to depart these war zones are able
    to take with them experiences and tactics that could
    potentially be applied to other places. Additionally, they are
    radicalized so they have the ability to bring others onboard
    with this. These, I think, are the principal concerns. This has
    been at the forefront of our efforts from the very beginning.
    As you have heard the Secretary talk about our strategy of
    annihilation, in the conduct of our operations, we have always
    attempted to isolate these areas and prevent the escape of
    these fighters so that they are either killed or captured where
    we take them on, and I think we have been successful in that.
    Certainly, there are some that have gotten away.
        We have, with the support of some of the authorities that
    have been provided to us by Congress, we do have an effective
    program to interdict foreign fighters as they attempt to depart
    the area. And we are now working with the Department of State
    and the Department of Justice to ensure that these hundreds
    that are in the control of our partners in both Iraq and Syria
    are moving into a judicial process that holds them accountable
    and, ultimately, returns them to the countries from which they
    came.
        Mr. Wilson. And what a challenge that is. The detainees you
    are speaking of, not just fighters, but their families. And
    this has just got to be addressed, and I appreciate you
    bringing that issue up.
        Additionally, Turkey has been a valued ally, for nearly a
    century, of the United States. A member of NATO, beginning with
    the Korean War, they have been fighting side by side with
    Americans for freedom. What is being done to continue our
    important alliance?
        General Votel. Thank you, and I would just echo your
    comments. Turkey has been absolutely vital throughout the
    entire campaign plan. They certainly have serious concerns of
    PKK [Kurdistan Workers' Party] terrorism. Of course, this has
    created some tension with some of the partners we have on the
    ground.
        The principal way that we are addressing this, Congressman,
    is by being transparent and clear and candid with Turkey about
    the things that we are doing on a day-to-day basis with our
    partners. Just this morning, I had a conversation with my
    counterpart in Turkey, again, sharing information back and
    forth, keeping the communication channels professional and open
    as we discuss this very, very difficult challenge that we are
    working through.
        Mr. Wilson. And with the multitude of issues you have to
    face, Yemen, what is the latest on efforts to provide security
    in working with Saudi Arabia?
        General Votel. I would say, you know, our effort in this
    setting is principally to help them defend themselves, and I
    think we have made some very good progress in this area. And I
    look forward, in the closed session, to sharing with you some
    examples.
        Mr. Wilson. We appreciate your service. Thank you.
        General Votel. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Mr. Veasey.
        Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I wanted to ask you, there was a column in The Wall Street
    Journal, I believe in their opinion section maybe about 4 days
    ago, that talked about where they allege that there was a
    Russian attack on U.S. special operation forces on the evening
    of February the 7th and 8th. And I specifically wanted to ask
    you what you know about that, and how can CENTCOM prioritize
    U.S. counterterrorism objectives while trying to avoid any sort
    of dangerous escalation with Russia?
        General Votel. Thank you, Congressman. You know, I think we
    have kind of characterized that as pro-regime forces. You know,
    we are certainly aware of the amount of media that is out there
    talking about this. But in this particular instance, this was a
    very clear case of self-defense on our part. And so I, frankly,
    am quite proud of the way the force responded to this: quickly
    identified it, immediately got on the net to our Russian--our
    channel here to talk with them about this--we were talking with
    them before, during, and after this--and very effectively
    brought together the right capabilities to address this self-
    defense threat. And so they have continued to do that.
        So, you know, I think what I would just tell you is that we
    retain sufficient capability to protect ourselves at the same
    time that we are pursuing our counterterrorism objectives in
    Syria.
        Mr. Veasey. Do you think that Russia is going to want to
    try to have more influence or diminish our influence in the
    region once we push ISIS out of there, or how do you see that
    relationship, you know, playing out long term?
        General Votel. Well, I think what I would say, Congressman,
    is what we see is Russia has failed to follow through on
    delivering the regime in a number of different areas. As we
    look at the U.N. sanctions, cease-fire that was put in this
    place, one that they helped draft and agreed to implement and
    to cause the regime to comply by it, they have failed to do
    that. So I think either Russia has to admit that it is not
    capable or it doesn't want to play a role in ending the Syrian
    conflict here. I think the role is incredibly destabilizing at
    this point.
        Mr. Veasey. I would also like to briefly kind of switch
    here and ask you just a little bit about Afghanistan too. I
    know that there have been some that have been concerned about
    our deteriorating relationship with the Pakistanis, and was
    wondering, how important do you think it is for us to continue
    to have relationships with Pakistan, keeping routes open, so we
    can adequately supply troops in the Afghanistan part of the
    Middle East? And just what are some of your thoughts on that
    whole relationship and, particularly, just how it lines up with
    Afghanistan?
        General Votel. Congressman, my view is that success in
    Afghanistan and South Asia will require a strong relationship
    and the cooperation of Pakistan. And since the announcement of
    the South Asia strategy, this has been one of my principal
    focuses here, is to help Pakistan and us together, achieve the
    specific things that we require for them, we have asked them to
    do in support of our strategy.
        And what I would report to you and to the committee is that
    I do have very frequent and routine professional communications
    with my counterpart. We talk almost weekly. We meet frequently
    face-to-face. And my goal is to develop this very productive
    and trustful relationship that will help us move forward
    together. I can't characterize the relationship as trustful at
    this particular point. There is a lot of history here that has
    to be overcome.
        But what I will also tell you is that we are now beginning
    to see positive indicators. They, through their communications,
    they are reporting to us some of the actions that they are
    taking on the ground. These are positive indicators that they
    are moving in the right direction. It does not yet equal the
    decisive action that we would like to see them take in terms of
    a strategic shift, but they are positive indicators. And it
    gives me hope that our approach is the right one. I have
    confidence in our approach, and it gives me hope that we can
    begin to restore this very important relationship.
        Mr. Veasey. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Lamborn.
        Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, General, thank
    you for your service.
        You have barely mentioned Lebanon and we hardly ever talk
    about Lebanon. But there are so many problems there, and in any
    other part of the world, it would be front and center in the
    headlines all the time. But with all the other problems in
    CENTCOM, it takes a backseat.
        But given that Hezbollah is a U.S.-designated terrorist
    organization and that the Lebanese President has been very
    public in his support of Hezbollah as a military partner with
    the Lebanese Armed Forces, and given that we have, in the past
    anyway, supplied high-quality American arms to the Lebanese
    Armed Forces, do you think we should keep working with the
    Lebanese Armed Forces and giving them high-quality American
    weaponry, and are they a reliable partner?
        General Votel. Congressman, I think they are a very
    reliable partner. And I think the investments that we have made
    over the last 10 or 11 years, very moderate investments in
    terms of people and money, compared to some of the other things
    we do, have really paid off. And they are helping us develop a
    very professional Lebanese Armed Forces that is beginning to be
    viewed as the principal security arm in Afghanistan.
        And I note your comment here about it doesn't appear in the
    news, but, frankly, Lebanon is a frequent stopping place for me
    and for all of my commanders, and we pay a lot of attention to
    this relationship. We have an outstanding ambassador there who
    is a very, very engaged in the activities, and we are very
    proud of what Lebanese Armed Forces are doing. They very
    effectively last fall, on their own, orchestrated a pretty
    effective operation against ISIS. They view us as their most
    important partner, and I do think it is an investment worth
    continuing.
        Mr. Lamborn. But doesn't the relationship between the
    cozying up to Hezbollah within Lebanon to the conventional
    forces there give you pause?
        General Votel. Well, I tell you, I frequently interact with
    the chief of defense there. I consider him to be a very
    professional military officer. You know, this is a
    multiconfessional arrangement here in Pakistan that obviously
    trips over into the political environment, but what I observe
    in Lebanon is a military that is answerable to the leadership,
    is doing a good job at staying apolitical, and is focused on
    security of the country.
        Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Shifting gears to Saudi Arabia, are we
    doing enough to help them and the United Arab Emirates defend
    themselves, as was discussed a little earlier, from Iranian-
    supplied missiles to the Houthi rebels? Are we doing enough?
        General Votel. In this setting, I would say yes, we are. We
    are definitely focused on this particular threat right here,
    and I look forward to sharing a few more comments with you
    about this in the closed session.
        Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Thank you. Now, in Yemen, the U.S.
    military has conducted a much higher number of strikes against
    terrorist targets last year than in 2016, the previous year.
    What positive impact, if any, have these strikes had on AQAP
    [al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula] and on ISIS in Yemen--or
    excuse me, Islamic State in Yemen?
        General Votel. Thank you, Congressman. It has had, I think,
    a very significant impact on AQAP. Certainly, it has impacted
    their ability to conduct external operations. It has gone into
    the areas in which they have had sanctuary, and it has
    continued to present them with multiple dilemmas that they have
    to deal with. So not only are they contending with our strikes,
    but they are also contending with partner operations that we
    work with our Arab coalition partners on the ground and with
    our Yemeni partners on the ground. And this has become very,
    very effective.
        And I would tell you that we are extending that to ISIS in
    Yemen as well. That is not as well developed as al-Qaida is,
    but, of course, it is ISIS. We understand their ideology. We
    understand where they are going. And so we are very concerned
    about them as well.
        Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Thank you. And lastly, I would like to
    ask about the 4th Infantry Division at Fort Carson in my
    district. They are sending a brigade combat team to Afghanistan
    this spring. And even though we have had budget shortfalls for
    the military in recent years, we have made huge steps with this
    latest budget agreement to beef up military spending, which I
    totally applaud and support. So I think readiness will be less
    of an issue in the future, but do you feel good about the
    current state of readiness with, for instance, the brigade
    combat team going to Afghanistan this spring?
        General Votel. Congressman, I do. I haven't had an
    opportunity to visit that specific brigade, but I just had an
    opportunity to visit one of the brigades that is coming in, the
    Security Force Assistance Brigade. I am extraordinarily
    appreciative of the efforts that are put forth by the Army, by
    the Marine Corps, the Air Force, all the services here that we
    depend upon in Afghanistan to give us high-quality forces.
        Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Ms. Gabbard.
        Ms. Gabbard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, General
    Votel, for your service and for being here.
        I would like to talk a little bit more about what you began
    with in your opening statement and some of the comments you
    have made since about U.S. military objectives in Syria. You
    talked about how you are working to defeat ISIS and bring that
    campaign to a responsible close. Later, you mentioned that
    countering Iran is not a coalition mission in Syria. Last
    month, we heard from Secretary Tillerson about how U.S.
    military presence in Syria will remain for an indefinite period
    of time. And he went on to list a very expansive list of
    strategic objectives of the U.S. military, to include ensuring
    the defeat of ISIS, to include diminishing the influence of
    Iran, advancing U.N.-led political resolution, et cetera, et
    cetera.
        So my question is: What is the objective of our U.S. forces
    in Syria? And under what legal basis is this indefinite
    presence in Syria planned under?
        General Votel. Thank you. So the principal reason we are in
    Syria is to defeat ISIS. And that remains our sole and single
    task that we are principally oriented on. Part of defeating
    ISIS, though, is removing their control of the physical
    caliphate, the physical terrain, as you are well aware, and
    ensuring they can't resurge. So that means that after we have
    removed them from their controlled terrain, we have to
    consolidate our gains and we have to ensure that the right
    security and stability is in place so that they cannot resurge.
    So that is part of being responsible coalition members in here,
    and that will take some time beyond all of this.
        Our legal basis for operating in Syria was largely driven
    by the collective self-defense of Iraq. But when we first went
    there, ISIS, being an organization that did not adhere to
    sovereign boundaries, were moving back and forth across the
    area. And while we were beginning to address ISIS in Iraq, we
    knew that we also had to address ISIS in Syria.
        I would also point out, Congresswoman, that the Syrian
    regime itself has proved unwilling and unable to address this
    particular threat. While they did do some operations down in
    the middle Euphrates Valley here several months ago, they have
    largely departed that area, and they have taken the pressure
    off of ISIS and created more problems for the coalition in
    dealing with this.
        So, you know, I think those are the principal----
        Ms. Gabbard. So our U.S. forces are still operating under
    the 2001 AUMF. Is that correct?
        General Votel. We are.
        Ms. Gabbard. And does countering Iran--I am just seeing
    some contradiction between what the Secretary of State is
    saying, that that is now going to be a part of the U.S.
    military objective in Syria, and what you stated today, saying
    that countering Iran is not a part of the coalition mission.
        Just a follow-up to that, if it is, then how does that fall
    under the 2001 AUMF that deals directly with countering al-
    Qaida and its affiliates?
        General Votel. I think my understanding as the Secretary of
    State laid this out is he laid it out not as a U.S. military
    objective, but he laid it out as a U.S. objective. So there are
    certainly other ways that we can address Iran's destabilizing
    activities and other than through military means.
        The fact of the matter is, as I mentioned a few moments
    ago, even though Iran isn't our principal focus here in this
    campaign, our relationship with partners both in Iraq and in
    Syria does put us in a position where we can indirectly have an
    impact on the objectives that Iran is pursuing in this part of
    the world. So I think I would characterize it more in that
    regard than us actively doing something militarily against
    Iran.
        Ms. Gabbard. Thank you. I believe Secretary Tillerson was
    quite specific in speaking about this within the justification
    of a maintained U.S. military presence there.
        My last quick question is about Yemen, and under what
    authorization are we providing arms and direct military support
    to Saudi Arabia in what is essentially a proxy war between
    Saudi Arabia and Iran?
        General Votel. Well, any armed sales, of course, go through
    our foreign military sales and foreign military funding process
    that is managed by the Department of State, and so they have
    the principal oversight for that. The provision of fuel to
    Saudi aircraft is provided for under the Acquisition Cross-
    Servicing Agreement that we have in place with Saudi Arabia.
    And so that provides us the authority to provide that support
    to them.
        Ms. Gabbard. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Mr. Wittman.
        Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        General Votel, thanks so much for joining us today. I
    wanted to begin by getting your perspective. You speak about
    Navy presence in the Gulf and the Red Sea, and we think about
    CENTCOM as being land-centric. But we also see, as you
    specifically point out, the first overseas Navy base put in
    place by the Chinese in Djibouti. We see in Port Doraleh a
    single berth there reserved for the Chinese Navy. We see
    President Xi Jinping, through a modernization of his military,
    looking to very aggressively expand and sustain operations
    around the world.
        From your perspective there as CENTCOM commander in that
    AOR, specifically what do you see our U.S. Navy doing to
    counter this Chinese expansionism? And what do you need as far
    as U.S. Navy presence there to make sure that we have what is
    necessary there in relation to what we see as Chinese
    aggressive expansion?
        General Votel. Thanks, Congressman, I appreciate the
    question. I would share--I am an Army guy saying this, I would
    share that while we do think about the land territory in
    CENTCOM, it very much is a maritime theater with the three
    critical chokepoints that, you know, are so important to us in
    this area. So I do recognize that.
        I would just tell you that I think, certainly, the
    resources that are being provided to me, the maritime resources
    that are provided to me by the Navy and the Marine Corps, I
    think are adequate to the task that we have right now. I think
    the principal way that we develop resilience against these
    types of, you know, great power influences in this area is
    through, first of all, our presence, our constant presence, and
    we do maintain a constant presence in both the Red Sea, the
    Gulf of Aden, into the Arabian Gulf, and the Gulf of Oman as
    well, and through our very close partnership with our partners.
    We have three combined maritime task forces that are led out of
    our naval headquarters in Bahrain that include a variety of
    different nations.
        So when I look at the nations that are on our team and I
    look at the nations that are lining up with some of these
    others that are entering in the area, I think our teams are
    very strong. And I think this is a very key way for us to
    maintain our influence and pursue our interests in the CENTCOM
    maritime environment.
        Mr. Wittman. Very good. Last year, the U.S. Naval Office of
    Intelligence pointed out some challenges there with potentially
    placing the mines that would put at risk commercial vessels
    there near Bab-el-Mandeb Strait. Give me your perspective, not
    only on what that potential threat is, because we see Houthis
    operating in the area, obviously, shooting at U.S. ships. Give
    me your perspective on what we are doing in minesweeping our
    operations there, looking to counter that potential threat for
    mines, because we know that that is a chokepoint area that is
    strategically very important.
        General Votel. Thank you. Well, we certainly maintain
    minesweeping capabilities in the Gulf and have for a number of
    years, but so do our partners. And I would just point out, you
    know, some of our partners, like the Emirates and Saudi Arabia,
    have some very good capability in this regard. And so one of
    the things that we do is work with them to optimize their
    capabilities. Again, by, with, and through getting them to use
    their capabilities and using our intelligence and some of our
    experience to help them be more effective at this.
        And so this, I think, has been very effective in
    preventing, you know, a major mine catastrophe, if you will, in
    the Bab-el-Mandeb, one that we are very concerned about. Sixty
    to seventy ships a day go through the Bab-el-Mandeb, not just
    ours, everybody's. So this is a very real threat that we have
    to pay attention to.
        Mr. Wittman. Do you currently have intelligence gathering
    operations to look at what is happening in Bab-el-Mandeb Strait
    about the activities that are going on there, what we can do to
    maybe counter that, or the things we can do to interdict it?
    Because, obviously, keeping a mine from being laid is a lot
    better than having to go in and sweep those particular areas,
    especially from a time perspective. Give us your perspective on
    what is happening there.
        General Votel. Congressman, I would say in this setting, we
    absolutely do, and I would look forward to sharing the details
    with you in a different setting.
        Mr. Wittman. Very good.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Mr. Carbajal.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. General Votel, thank
    you for being here today.
        America has been engaged in Afghanistan for 16 years, and
    it is difficult to determine what progress we have made. The
    administration's new strategy increased its troop levels to
    14,000 troops. However, unable to learn from history, we are
    investing more lives and resources without clearly defined
    benchmarks. I am extremely concerned about the fact that
    significant information is being withheld from the Office of
    Inspector General for Afghanistan's Reconstruction and,
    ultimately, the American people.
        According to the inspector general, quote: ``It is hard to
    make a determination of how good a job we are doing, because if
    the Afghan military is not fighting that well, and there are
    not many of them, we can't determine fraud, waste, and abuse in
    Afghanistan.''
        Because they can't get basic facts from the Department, how
    are you measuring progress in Afghanistan? Please describe the
    end state. What does success look like to you? Currently, what
    is the amount of territory under the Afghan Government's
    control? And help me understand how withholding information has
    made a difference in our operations in Afghanistan.
        General Votel. Thank you, Congressman. I will take your
    last one here. We are aware of that issue, and I think measures
    are being taken to address that right now. Some of that
    information is not necessarily U.S. Government information. It
    is information of the Afghan Government, and so they control
    the release and classification of that information. So this is
    something we have to continue to work with.
        Mr. Carbajal. General, if I could just interrupt you. It is
    great to parlay that to the Afghan Government, but we are the
    ones with resources and the lives of our military there. So we
    have got to be able to get some information from them to
    appease those of us that have to make decisions on what kind of
    investments we need to make in the area.
        General Votel. Thank you, Congressman, and I am committed
    to making sure that you do have those details.
        You asked also about kind of how we are looking at the
    situation right now. What I would tell you is, the big idea
    here with what we are trying to do in Afghanistan right now, is
    drive towards reconciliation. This is different than the
    approach we have had in the past. And we are trying to do that
    through creating, not just military pressure with our military
    activities on the ground, but we are trying to do it through
    creating social pressure with things that the Afghan Government
    is doing, like credible elections that they are pursuing this
    year at the parliamentary level and the national level next
    year. And we are doing it through creating diplomatic and
    regional pressure, just as we talked about with Pakistan a few
    moments ago.
        The idea here is that creating pressure on all of those
    three axes are going to create enough pressure on the Taliban
    that they come to the table. What is different this time as we
    approach this is that we are taking a conditions-based approach
    that is focused on reconciliation as its end state. It is a
    regional focus here, and we are engaging the partners in the
    region, not just Pakistan, but the Central Asian states as well
    who are key to this.
        And we have changed the way that we are working with the
    Afghan forces. So we previously had advised down to a very low
    level with their Afghan special operations forces. We are now,
    with the additional enablers and additional advisers that the
    Department has approved for us, are taking that capability and
    extending it out to their conventional forces. We are building
    out the Afghan Air Force. We are doubling the size of their
    Afghan special operations capability. So there are a variety of
    different aspects to this approach. This will give us the
    ability to measure the progress.
        You asked about how much of the population is controlled by
    the Afghan Government. Today, the figure is 64 percent. Twelve
    percent of the population is in areas that are controlled by
    the Taliban, and the balance of that are in contested areas.
    Our focus, the focus of our military operations is on
    increasing and expanding population control by the Government
    of Afghanistan. And what we are going to do this season is we
    are going to--our intention is to break the stalemate, grab the
    initiative, begin to expand population control this year and
    next year, and then ensure that we create an environment here
    that allows for credible elections to take place, one of the
    most important things that the Afghan people need to see from
    their government.
        Mr. Carbajal. We are running out of time. What about
    information, the sharing of information with the inspector
    general?
        General Votel. As I mentioned, Congressman, we will do our
    very best to ensure that you have the information that you need
    to make the decisions that are necessary.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you so much.
        I yield back, Mr. Chair.
        The Chairman. Mr. Scott.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, thank you for
    being here.
        I want to talk with you a little bit about ISR
    [intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] in the CENTCOM
    area. And I know you have got a lot of partners in that area,
    but what percentage of the ISR does the United States provide?
        General Votel. I am not sure I can tell you what the
    percentage overall is. I mean, it is very clear that the
    majority of the ISR in the region is being provided by the
    United States.
        Mr. Scott. What about the DOD's capacity to meet the demand
    for ISR? Do you have enough ISR currently?
        General Votel. Well, I think, Congressman, I don't think
    you are going to find any commander that is going to say that
    he has enough ISR. We right now, today, have the largest
    concentration of MQ-9s down in Kandahar Airfield designed to
    support General Nicholson and his forces, and I know that is
    adequate for what he needs right now. But given his own
    druthers, I am sure he would want more. And so we would want
    more in all these areas.
        Mr. Scott. I understand that the Army in some ways and
    commanders are agnostic as to the different platforms that ISR
    may come from, but I assume that when it comes to providing
    additional ISR, the commanders would not be agnostic to the
    timeline to get new ISR to the field. Would that be a fair
    statement?
        General Votel. That is right. I think the faster we can
    continue to provide those capabilities, the better.
        Mr. Scott. So one of my concerns, and I certainly have a
    tremendous amount of respect for the Secretary of Defense and
    the Secretary of the Air Force as well, but as they have
    changed the strategy to more of a China or Russia strategy,
    they are canceling the procurement or have proposed to cancel
    the procurement of items that are not capable of flying against
    the Russians or the Chinese or in a direct conflict with the
    Russians and the Chinese.
        One of these platforms is the new JSTARS [Joint
    Surveillance Target Attack Radar System], the recapitalization
    of the JSTARS, which we have spent hundreds of millions to
    develop and are now currently ready to purchase. And they have
    proposed to cancel the procurement of the JSTARS because they
    have said that they are going to use a system that has not been
    developed yet, which, obviously, changes the timeline on when
    we can deliver that system to you.
        I guess my question is: Do the systems that you use in
    Central Command have to be survivable, if you will, in a
    conflict that would be as high end as that between the Russians
    and the Chinese, a direct conflict?
        General Votel. Well, they don't necessarily need to be. I
    mean, the environment is different in parts of CENTCOM than it
    might be in other parts of the world. So, you know, some of the
    requirements that I have, the environment that we operate in,
    are probably different than what Admiral Harris and others, and
    General Scaparrotti, you know, deal with, and PACOM [U.S.
    Pacific Command] and EUCOM [U.S. European Command],
    respectively, here.
        Mr. Scott. I would appreciate any advocacy you could have.
    I agree with you 100 percent, and I am not opposed to the DOD
    developing the system that they want for the fight against the
    Russians and the Chinese. But even in developing that system,
    we don't want to use that system unless we have to because we
    don't want the Russians and the Chinese to be able to gather
    the intel that they are going to gather from it every time we
    fly it.
        So we certainly continue to be concerned about, as we shift
    in strategy to China and Russia, abandoning platforms that work
    in the other parts of the world which are very serious fights
    that we are in and that you are commanding right now.
        I am down to about a minute, but just briefly, if you
    would, again, I have been on the border of Syria and Israel.
    The military objectives in Syria, can you just outline for us
    what they are again very briefly?
        General Votel. Well, specifically, it is to ensure--
    principally, it is to ensure an enduring defeat of ISIS is what
    the principal objective is of our military campaign right now
    in Syria. You know, certainly we are concerned about the
    weapons of mass destruction, in terms of some of their chemical
    capabilities. As you have seen in the past, we are obviously
    very concerned about making sure we can provide the
    humanitarian aid, the stability that goes along with getting
    people back into their homes. We are concerned about making
    sure that we protect allies that are on the flanks of Syria--
    Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey--that all feel the impacts of that.
    And, of course, we are very keen to ensure that there is a
    political resolution to all of this. Of course, that is beyond
    my military----
        Mr. Scott. General, my time has expired, but it is a tough
    situation. I am glad that we have a leader like you over there
    and thank you for your service.
        The Chairman. Mr. Brown.
        Mr. Brown. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
        And, General Votel, thank you for your leadership and for
    appearing before the House Armed Services Committee to discuss
    the readiness, the posture, and the activities within CENTCOM.
    So thank you.
        I want to bring your attention back to Iran and its
    activities in Syria, perhaps covering some ground that has been
    covered and hopefully clarifying at least one point that you
    made. Iran is playing a very large role in Syria, providing
    senior advisers to the Assad regime, delivering weapons, cash,
    recruiting, and encouraging foreign fighters.
        Last month, Iran launched a drone that entered Israeli
    airspace. There was a series of events resulting in the downing
    of an F-16. The situation is clearly escalating and at greater
    risk.
        You mentioned, in response to Ms. Cheney's question, that
    we can impede Tehran. Can you just identify what those
    strategic and/or operational impediments are that we are
    putting in Tehran's way, and can you evaluate the effectiveness
    of them?
        General Votel. Well, I think some--as I mentioned, I think
    one of the things that we can do is we can build strong and
    resilient partnerships with our partners, whether it is the
    Iraqis on their side of the border or whether it is, you know,
    kind of the Syrian Democratic Forces. At this point, that is
    our partner on the ground.
        You know, in many regards, these partners share the same
    concerns we do with this, that they don't want their countries,
    they don't want their areas exploited by others for purposes of
    creating instability in this area.
        So the relationships that we develop with them, Iraqi
    forces, you know, particularly their border control forces, I
    think help aid and prevent the movement of these types of
    activities and equipment back and forth across their borders. I
    think the Iraqis are as concerned about that as we would be and
    as most countries would be.
        And, certainly, I think in Syria, although I do acknowledge
    our partners on the ground are a very indigenous partner, they
    do control very important areas along the border between Iraq
    and Syria. And so they can as well, through their own
    operations, make it difficult for Iran to pursue their
    activities through these particular areas. And so that is why I
    kind of describe it much more in an indirect way as----
        Mr. Brown. If I may, General, so that sounds a little bit
    aspirational and I appreciate that. Can you evaluate the
    effectiveness of what you just described?
        General Votel. Well, I think we are working on how we
    actually do that. I mean, most of these networks are very
    resilient. They are very savvy in terms of how they are doing
    things. So this is something that we are looking at now, how we
    measure the effectiveness of it.
        I mean, we are only in this case largely talking about
    ground routes. Certainly, Iran has the ability to use air
    routes as well to basically go over or around all of that. They
    have the ability to use maritime routes. They have the ability
    to go through Africa to get to these areas as well.
        So, you know, we have to look at this holistically as we
    try to address this.
        Mr. Brown. So let me ask one other question, perhaps the
    last in the time I have remaining. I understand that Israel is
    in the EUCOM AOR. You know, conflict in that region doesn't
    necessarily respect the area of operations of our different
    commands. Can you talk about in the event, regardless of the
    likelihood, of a conflict between Iran and Israel, regardless
    of how it is provoked, can you just comment on what our
    readiness--in this setting, perhaps it is best for the
    classified setting--our readiness and posture to come to the
    aid of Israel?
        General Votel. Again, I think that is probably a question
    that is best suited for General Scaparrotti, but what I would
    tell you----
        Mr. Brown. For readiness and posture? That wouldn't involve
    CENTCOM?
        General Votel. Right. Given that it is in his area and he
    has the principal responsibility for that relationship.
        What I would tell you is this, is that, you know, the
    CENTCOM area, not just on the Israeli border, but certainly on
    the border of Egypt with Libya, on the border of Pakistan with
    India, to the north of the Central Asian states with Russia, it
    is a tough neighborhood. And so it is imperative for the
    combatant commanders to be very well-nested across all of these
    areas.
        And I think, under the leadership of our chairman and with
    the National Defense Strategy that the Secretary has put in
    place, that we are improving significantly our ability to
    operate in cooperation with each other and in many cases very,
    very seamlessly.
        So it is not unusual for General Scaparrotti and I to have
    a lot of coordination and talking across our common areas of
    concern, just like it is not uncommon for General Waldhauser in
    AFRICOM [U.S. Africa Command] and I to talk or Admiral Harris
    and I to talk about the things on his side.
        So this is an area where we have really got to continue to
    pay attention to, and I think we are doing a much, much better
    job of this.
        Mr. Brown. Thank you, General.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Ms. McSally.
        Ms. McSally. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        General Votel, good to see you again. I have three
    important questions. I will be as fast as I can. The first is
    about this attack on U.S. forces in Syria, media reports
    alleging it is by Russian mercenaries.
        Can you comment at all if we have confirmation that, in
    fact, those were Russian mercenaries, number one? How many do
    you think were killed? And do we have any confirmation that
    that was approved or ordered by the Kremlin or Putin? And what
    do you think their objective might have been?
        General Votel. Congresswoman, I am not sure I can report
    anything different than you have seen in the media and in the
    press on this right now, in terms of numbers and attribution of
    who this is. What I can tell you is that, throughout this
    entire event, we were in communications on our communication
    channel with the Russians before, during, after. And what they
    told us is these were not their forces and not their military
    forces.
        So, you know, I think that kind of speaks for itself here
    in terms of what they are. And then, of course, we have seen
    all the media that has come out after this. So, to me, it
    highlights, again, the unwillingness, inability of the regime
    and pro-regime forces to take seriously the ISIS threat,
    particularly if there is apparent contracted forces in the area
    attempting to do this.
        Ms. McSally. So do you believe they were not Russian
    mercenaries, and do we have any intelligence to corroborate or
    confirm or deny that?
        General Votel. None that I would discuss in this particular
    setting.
        Ms. McSally. Could we maybe discuss in the follow-on
    setting?
        General Votel. I would be happy to talk with you.
        Ms. McSally. But do you personally believe that they were
    not Russian mercenaries at this point, or can you not even say
    that?
        General Votel. We have characterized them as pro-regime
    forces at this point.
        Ms. McSally. Okay. I look forward to following up in a
    classified setting.
        The second topic is A-10 Warthog was back in Afghanistan
    kicking butt in January. Can you comment on the types of
    missions that they are doing? And I know it is a little
    specific, but as part of the shift in strategy, it seems like
    we are now going after more of the sources of revenue perhaps
    overall in attacking the, you know, poppy industry and the
    drugmaking facilities. And how is the A-10 doing over there?
        General Votel. A-10s are doing great. They were in action
    within 24 hours of being on the ground here. And I have had an
    opportunity to visit the squadron and meet the squadron
    commander, and very, very proud of what they are doing. And
    they are doing the things that we would expect the A-10s to do.
        Part of our concept and why we are pushing adviser teams
    down to a lower level is so that we can bring capabilities like
    the A-10 to bear very effectively in support of the Afghan
    National Defense Forces. And so that is what we expect they are
    doing.
        You are correct: One of the things that has been successful
    and we have tried to carry over from our defeat-ISIS campaign
    is going after the revenue generation and, in this case, the
    narcotrafficking that fuels the Taliban. And so this is a key
    focus for General Nicholson and our forces at this point.
        Ms. McSally. Great. Thanks. I do want to note if the last
    administration got their way, all the A-10s would be in the
    boneyard by now. And as I told this President, you are going to
    have to pry them out of my cold dead hands, because it is such
    a critical warfighting capability. And I appreciate this
    committee and leadership working to keep that asset so we can
    be doing missions like this.
        The last topic is I am really concerned about the buildup
    on Israel's northern border, so southern Syria, of Iranian-
    backed militias and forces, Quds Force commanding that, and the
    increased aggression we are seeing from there, as the Assad
    regime seems to be shoring up controlling that area, and the
    potential for escalation of a crisis with Israel.
        Again, I know that's EUCOM's AOR, but Syria is yours. So
    can you speak to what you are seeing in the trends in the Golan
    area and whether there is a threat there?
        General Votel. I think we share the same concerns that you
    have just highlighted right here. And, you know, what this is--
    you know, very effectively in this southwestern corner of
    Syria, we have been able to diplomatically begin to address
    that. And so working with the special Presidential envoy, Mr.
    McGurk, and others, we are continuing to keep focus on that.
        Again, Russia is a party to this and they have
    responsibilities to ensure that, you know, the detractable
    partners that may be in this area are under control. And so
    they have to take responsibility for this and be held
    accountable, not just the Iranians but the others that are down
    there that are much more akin to the violent extremists down
    there. So I think we have to continue to address that in this
    particular aspect.
        Ms. McSally. Can you share any of the trends that you are
    seeing, increase in military capability we have seen, again,
    with the escalation over the last few weeks, and any concerns
    you have about that escalating into a full-blown crisis with
    Israel?
        General Votel. Well, I think what I am concerned about is
    in these places down in the southwest and particularly up in
    places like Idlib, these are becoming collection zones for a
    lot of unsavory organizations right here, and eventually, they
    are going to have to be dealt with. And so I am concerned that,
    left unaddressed, that they will become bigger problems.
        In terms of trends and stuff like this, I can't tell you in
    the southwest, particularly in this setting, that we have seen
    anything specific here in terms of this, but obviously there
    are some concerns. But what we have seen in places like Idlib
    and others is where these groups that have come together do
    potentially pose long-term challenges for security of the
    region, above and beyond Syria.
        Ms. McSally. Great. Thanks. I am over my time, but I look
    forward to discussing further in the closed session. Thanks.
        The Chairman. Mr. Langevin.
        Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        General, great to see you again. Thank you for your great
    service to the Nation. It is a pleasure to have you back before
    the committee once again.
        I would like to continue on the Iran topic as well and do a
    deeper dive on this topic. So Iran supports numerous proxies:
    Hezbollah in Israel, Lebanon, and Syria; the Houthis in Yemen;
    and militias in Iraq. Iran is using its militias and insurgents
    abroad to upset the existing order and sow chaos, obviously. In
    addition to proxies, Iran uses other asymmetric means, like
    cyber operations and information warfare, to expand its
    influence in the region.
        So can you explain how you have seen Iran utilize these
    techniques during your tenure as CENTCOM commander to create a
    land bridge through Iraq and Syria to Lebanon, and if you think
    they have been effective in increasing their influence through
    this strategy?
        General Votel. Thanks. Thanks, Congressman. Some of this
    discussion probably I think is best set for a closed session
    here, but, you know, I think, you know, what Iran attempts to
    do is by creating proxy organizations that can go out there and
    do their bidding, that can operate in areas in which they have
    interests. I think they are attempting to do that. And I do
    think we see some instances of that as we look at some of the
    undisciplined Shia militia organizations that are here that are
    much more beholden to Iran than they are to, say, the
    Government of Iraq. This is very concerning to us, and I think
    this gives us indications that they are acting not on behalf of
    the government they say they are representing but on behalf of
    another party.
        Mr. Langevin. Okay. Good. I look forward to following up on
    that question too once we are in the closed session.
        So the war in Syria has left hundreds of thousands dead,
    millions either internally displaced or seeking asylum as
    refugees. But as the fight against ISIL transitions to
    consolidating gains and building stability, it seems as if some
    of the groups that have formed partnerships of convenience may
    now turn their attention towards fighting each other instead.
        So how do you see these various elements aligning
    themselves in Syria, and do you worry about a potential
    shifting regional balance of power, and do you feel the Syrian
    Kurds might feel slighted by recent events and align more
    closely with Iran to ward off threats?
        General Votel. Yes. So, first off, Congressman, what I
    would say is, with the partners that we operate, the Syrian
    Democratic Forces, we have not necessarily seen infighting
    among themselves here in terms of that. I mean, it is a large
    organization, roughly half Kurd/half Arab, and with some others
    thrown in there, Yazidis and others, Turkmen, that are involved
    in this group. But, frankly, they, in my estimation, have
    continued to be pretty coherent in terms of how they are doing
    this.
        I guess the way I would describe it is that, as we are
    completing the defeat of ISIS, I think what we are now
    beginning to see is the reemergence of many of the underlying
    issues that have always been in place in Syria. And as we have
    converging forces in the area, we are now seeing diverging
    interests.
        And I think we see this down in the middle Euphrates Valley
    between the focus of the coalition and our partners on the
    ground and what the pro-regime element is focused on. They are
    less concerned about rooting out ISIS than they are about going
    in and addressing some of the opposition elements to the
    regime.
        So I think what we--I think what we have to be mindful of
    is that, as the caliphate goes away and as the threat of ISIS
    is removed, we will begin to see more of a return to the
    underlying challenges that really gave birth to many of these--
    to this problem and other problems in the country. And those
    are ultimately going to have to be addressed through some type
    of Geneva process that brings the parties together to, you
    know, establish some kind of process and arrangement that
    allows Syria to be the country that it should be.
        Mr. Langevin. It seems that we are at that tipping point
    right now where the State Department has to play a stronger
    role in working with the powers that have interests there and
    try to bring about a political solution. So I hope we are going
    to be pursuing that on dual tracks.
        I see my time is about to run out, so I will hold my
    questions for the closed session, but, again, thank you for
    your service, General, and I will yield back.
        The Chairman. Mr. Russell.
        Mr. Russell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, General Votel, for your testimony today.
        A couple of areas that I have not heard discussed. Could
    you give us your thoughts on Turkish operations in Afrin and
    its partnering with al-Qaida affiliates, its attacks on U.S.-
    backed forces, and how that will impact the by, with, and
    through strategy to make a stable border security force?
        General Votel. Congressman, I think some of that will
    probably be reserved for the closed session here. But, you
    know, I think we have acknowledged that Turkey has some
    concerns, has some significant concerns along their border with
    longstanding PKK interests. Our concern, of course, is that
    this activity in Afrin is detracting from our efforts against
    ISIS.
        Mr. Russell. And then kind of a broader scope on that. What
    actions do you think are needed to prevent this mixture of
    Erdogan-Putin counter-efforts to secure the hard-fought gains
    against ISIS?
        General Votel. Well, I think as I mentioned in my opening
    statement, as I have said a couple times here, I really view
    Russia as being at the heart of many of these issues here.
        And I am being very serious when I say they play the role
    of both arsonist and fireman, fueling tensions and then trying
    to resolve them in their favor and manipulating all the parties
    they can to try to achieve their objectives--their objectives--
    and not necessarily the broader objectives of the international
    community here.
        So I think there certainly has to be more accountability
    and pressure put on Russia to do what they said they were going
    to do.
        Mr. Russell. Do you think that that pressure could come
    from the other instruments of national power from the United
    States on our NATO ally in Turkey?
        General Votel. I think they can come from a variety of
    different sources, Congressman.
        Mr. Russell. And then I guess can you speak also to the
    need to interdict the ISIS/al-Qaida migration into sub-Saharan
    Africa, AQ Maghreb, Boko Haram, others, see a lot of that now,
    that as they have been pushed out of one area, that they may
    drift over to the other, and how that would cooperate between
    the combatant commands.
        General Votel. Well, certainly, we are very cognizant of
    what AFRICOM is dealing with with their partners on the ground
    in Sahel and the Maghreb here and very, very concerned about
    that. I think one of the principal things that we can do is
    continue to share information back and forth.
        Frankly, we are not seeing mass migration of these
    fighters. I won't tell you that they are probably not getting
    out with refugees and others that are doing that. That probably
    is occurring. But certainly, this is a concern long term.
        And so I think one of the things that we are attempting to
    do is, particularly now that we have so many foreign fighters
    that have been captured and are in some level of detention with
    our partners here, is try to get the international community
    engaged in taking responsibility for their people and bringing
    them to some level of justice. There is a lot that can be
    learned from these foreign fighters, and we have to make sure
    that we have exploited that and learned as much as we can so we
    can prevent it, but we also need to make sure that they are put
    back into the judicial process so they can be dealt with by
    their countries from which they came.
        Mr. Russell. Then I guess the last question I have would
    be, could you give your assessment of Egyptian and Saudi
    combined efforts on Yemen and the status of Yemen?
        General Votel. With respect to the status of Yemen, I
    think, obviously, Yemen is very destabilized at this particular
    point. Not only do they have a civil war going on, they have
    kind of a proxy war playing out here between Iran and Saudi
    Arabia, with Iran introducing advanced technology into there.
    We see the enabled Houthis trying to challenge navigation in
    the Bab-el-Mandeb, and, of course, they have a counterterrorism
    problem that we are very focused on.
        So, you know, I think, from the counterterrorism
    standpoint, I think we are making very good progress in this
    particular area. I don't see significant changes in the civil
    conflict that is taking place, that is largely being
    orchestrated by the Arab coalitions on the ground there. They
    certainly need to put some more effort into that. We are paying
    attention to the efforts by our diplomats and others here to
    try to address this politically. There had been--there has been
    some opportunities in the past that have not come to fruition
    yet, and I think we still have to continue on in this area.
        But I think Yemen is an area that we should all be
    concerned about, because we are seeing all kinds of problems in
    that particular area and, on top of it, huge humanitarian
    issues. The people are suffering greatly.
        Mr. Russell. Thank you.
        And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Ms. Rosen.
        Ms. Rosen. Thank you. I want to thank the general for being
    here today and thank the ranking member and the chairman for
    this important hearing.
        I would like to speak a little bit about sanctions on Iran
    and Russia, and what is your opinion and how would implementing
    sanctions or what level of sanctions, if any, do you think
    would influence activities in the Middle East, specifically
    Russia and Iran?
        General Votel. Well, Congresswoman, we don't really manage
    those within the Department of Defense and certainly not within
    CENTCOM. I do know that the Secretary has recently provided
    some information to Senator Corker and others with regards to
    CAATSA [Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act]
    and some of the other things regarding sanctions out here, and
    I think those kind of represent his interest.
        You know, I think sanctions are a very important part of
    this. In most of these threats--and I think as I tried to
    mention in my opening comments, this is a team sport. And so we
    can do things militarily, but we also need the other
    instruments of our national power, whether it is diplomatic,
    whether it is economic, whether it is informational, to really
    kick in on these things. And when we are able to bring all of
    those together, to include things like sanctions, I think we
    often have the best effects.
        And so, you know, I think there are certainly some very
    good areas where sanctions will make a difference. We do have
    to look at the impact of those on some of our partners, and we
    have to be mindful of that. I do think granting waiver
    authority to the Secretary of State with regard to some of
    these things is a good approach and gives us the flexibility
    that we need in these regards, but, you know, I look at it as a
    key part of the whole-of-government approach.
        Ms. Rosen. So you feel you are getting enough support in
    this regard?
        General Votel. I do. And I certainly know this is a
    continuing area of topic in other parts of the government.
        Ms. Rosen. Thank you.
        I also want to switch over and talk about Syria a little
    bit. And so where does the communication stand after Russian-
    aligned troops, of course, attacked our partner forces in Syria
    in early February? So how are things going there? And our
    strategy of deconfliction with Russian mechanisms, has that
    been helpful?
        General Votel. Congresswoman, there has been no change in
    the communication channel that we have had. Our deconfliction
    channel remains a very professional military discussion. It was
    before, and it has been since. And so it remains an effective
    way to deconflict our forces and make sure our airmen stay safe
    and our people on the ground are safe.
        Ms. Rosen. Thank you.
        I yield back my time.
        The Chairman. Mr. Gallagher.
        Mr. Gallagher. Just to follow up briefly on something Mr.
    Russell said, what do we say to our NATO allies in Ankara
    regarding our support for Kurdish elements in Syria, the YPG,
    and other elements? What message do we communicate to them?
        General Votel. The message that I have conveyed is that our
    Kurdish partners, part of the Syrian Democratic Forces, a
    multiethnic force that consists in equal measures and actually
    in greater measures of Arabs than Kurds, has been the most
    effective force on the ground in Syria against ISIS. And we
    need them to finish this fight. So I think that is the first
    thing and really one of the principal things we have to
    acknowledge to them. I think we also have to acknowledge their
    concerns about this. And so our attempts to try to be as
    transparent and clear in terms of what we are doing and our way
    forward I think are things we have to continue to emphasize to
    them.
        Mr. Gallagher. Do they simply make no distinction between
    the PKK and the elements that we support on the ground in
    Syria?
        General Votel. Well, they don't draw that distinction. And,
    of course, that is the tension.
        Mr. Gallagher. To follow up on something Ms. Cheney said
    earlier, or that you said in response to her question, that it
    is not part of the coalition effort to counter Iran in Syria,
    how would you characterize our strategy in Syria vis-a-vis
    Iran? What are we trying to do to Iran in Syria?
        General Votel. Well, I think our broad U.S. Government
    objective here is to limit Iran's influence in Syria, because,
    as we have seen, they are attempting to arm and motivate
    fighters that could pose threats to our other vital partners
    here. And so, you know, I think as a government, we have
    interest in trying to limit their influence and activities in
    this part of the region.
        Mr. Gallagher. I don't want to spend my remaining time on a
    semantic debate, but I just would say if their influence is
    gaining in Syria and we need to limit that, I sort of think
    that necessarily involves us countering their gains in Syria.
    So perhaps some clarity, or let me rather say, what is our
    strategy? How would you characterize our strategy vis-a-vis
    Iran throughout the rest of the region?
        General Votel. I would characterize our strategy as deter,
    assure, and compete. We have to have capabilities in place to
    deter Iran's use of ballistic missile capability against our
    partners, and we have to ensure that we can deter their ability
    to race to a nuclear weapons capability.
        We have to always assure our partners in the region. As I
    think I have said several times here, our partnerships, when
    you line up our coalition versus their coalition, ours is much
    more capable. And so continuing to develop those relationships
    is really very important and assuring our partners that we are
    going to be there with them.
        And then we have to compete with them not just militarily
    but with our other instruments of power, in the areas that we
    can. And this is pushing back, rolling back on their influence,
    pushing back on their narrative where we can, and then, in the
    areas where we must, preventing them from moving their weapons
    and other things around the theater that pose threats to our
    partners.
        Mr. Gallagher. But does that rollback, that competition
    sort of reach a limit in Syria? Is there some reason we are
    being less aggressive there? You sort of mentioned Iraq as an
    area where we are competing more effectively with them.
        General Votel. I think my point is only that, as we form
    the coalition, the defeat-ISIS coalition, that, you know, has
    both a military and a political component to it, that one of
    the objectives that has not been assigned to us is countering
    Iran. It has specifically been focused on the ISIS mission. So
    I think that is what I am trying to emphasize.
        Mr. Gallagher. And then, in Iraq, do you think we are
    actively or effectively competing with them? And I am thinking
    specifically of, you know, one of the biggest phenomena in the
    last year has been the rise of the PMF [Popular Mobilization
    Forces] and, you know, some of these groups may be able to be
    incorporated in the ISF [Iraqi security forces], but others are
    terrorists, you know, taking orders from the IRGC [Islamic
    Revolutionary Guard Corps].
        General Votel. Well, I think, you know, certainly
    addressing the PMF is something that the Prime Minister will
    have to do, and in many regards, he has done that. But, again,
    I think one of the best things we can do on the ground in Syria
    is being a really good and valued partner to the Iraqi security
    forces, and I think the assistance that the United States and
    the coalition did I think demonstrated that.
        And in my engagements with the security force leaders that
    I talk to on a regular basis, I think they deeply value that,
    and they appreciate it, and they look forward to maintaining
    that relationship in the future.
        Mr. Gallagher. I have run out of time. Thank you, sir.
        The Chairman. Mr. Suozzi.
        Mr. Suozzi. General, I want to thank you so much for your
    service and the great work of everyone under your command
    throughout the regions that are under your command.
        My particular concerns are about Afghanistan that I briefly
    discussed with you before the hearing began. And the special
    inspector general's report on Afghan reconstruction reports
    that we are not making progress as far as population centers
    and how much we control. In fact, we lost a little bit of
    ground from the last report.
        And I support what the military is doing. I supported the
    effort to increase the number of troops recently. And I think
    that you have a very clear strategy as far as the five points
    of help the Afghan Army, helping the Afghan special forces to
    increase their size and effectiveness; increase the
    collaboration between the Afghan Air Force and the Army; as
    well as replace their platforms with American equipment as
    opposed to Russian equipment; help the police; and put more
    pressure on Pakistan. It is a clear five-point strategy that
    makes tremendous sense, and you are doing a very effective job
    of clearing and holding area.
        The problem is the backfilling. And in your prepared
    testimony, you talked about how Kabul's uncertain political
    situation remains the greatest risk of stability. And you went
    on to say that ``the Government of the Islamic Republic of
    Afghanistan continues to suffer from a professional
    governmental capacity deficit, competing interests, and
    corruption.'' And my concern is that your colleagues on the
    civilian side do not have a clear plan the way that the
    military has. So I want to ask you, who do you see as being
    your clearest partners with General Nicholson on the civilian
    side in this effort, and what do you perceive their strategy to
    be? If you could put it in a succinct way, because I don't see
    them putting out a clear succinct plan on the civilian side. So
    you are clearing and holding, but when it comes to rebuilding
    and transitioning, they are not laying out a clear plan. So I
    just want to ask you to comment on that, please, General.
        General Votel. Thank you, Congressman.
        I think that the principal partner that we would look to on
    the U.S. side certainly is the Ambassador and the country team.
    And, you know, I do think we have a very outstanding Ambassador
    on the ground. I think he is very engaged in this. And I think
    we are beginning to address many of these things that you have
    talked about.
        As I mentioned to you, in many regards the military
    missions in many of these countries really are the easy part of
    addressing the situation. And the more difficult part is the
    political resolution that has to take place afterwards, because
    this is when you have to address the deep underlying issues
    that, you know, oftentimes gave way to the conflict that we
    just resolved.
        As I think I mentioned to you beforehand, you know,
    tomorrow in Kabul, President Ghani and, you know, certainly
    with the support of our Embassy, will be hosting the Kabul
    Process conference that will address both reconciliation and
    counterterrorism and will be an opportunity with 25 nations
    brought in to help do that.
        There are efforts underway with our Department of State
    interlocutors to help devise ways to move forward with
    reconciliation. It is extraordinarily complex. The Taliban is
    not a singular contiguous group to deal with. It is broken. It
    is fractured. And so not only do we have to look at
    reconciliation, we have to look at things like reintegration as
    well.
        So, you know, the task in front of our diplomats to solve
    this I think is an extraordinarily complex one as they move
    forward. And I do think this certainly is a challenge here, but
    I do think that they are moving forward in ways to begin to
    address this effectively here as we apply military, social, and
    diplomatic pressure to bring the Taliban to the table.
        Mr. Suozzi. So, General, in your testimony, you also--thank
    you very much for that, by the way. In your testimony, you
    talked about how Pakistan is starting to share more information
    and collaborate more than they had historically. What is your
    prognosis with Pakistan? What do you see happening in real time
    other than the sharing of information, and what can we hope to
    expect as far as progress regarding the governing of the
    ungoverned areas?
        General Votel. Well, you know, I would say that, first off,
    I think it is important to recognize that Pakistan has
    actually--you know, Pakistan as a country has suffered greatly
    from terrorism, perhaps as much as anybody in the region and
    maybe as much as anybody around the world. And they have taken
    a number of measures to address terrorism within their borders,
    and that has contributed over the years to, you know, some
    increased security in the area, and we have to recognize that
    upfront.
        So our approach I think is to continue to be engaged with
    them. We want to have a candid discussion. I think I do. We
    want to have frequent communication. We want to build trust in
    this relationship. The history of the United States and
    Pakistan, there is a very long history here. We do share many
    interests, and they share many things in common with us
    culturally, militarily, politically, in terms of what we are
    doing, but we have to continue to work with them to move them
    in directions that cause them to make strategic changes in
    their approach. And that is really what we are aimed at. I
    don't know that we can put a time limit on that, but, as I
    mentioned to you, we are seeing some positive indicators, and
    we have to ensure that we don't overlook these as we move
    forward and we continue to build on these, and this is what my
    objective is with my counterparts.
        Mr. Suozzi. Thank you, General.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Mr. Gaetz.
        Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, General, for your service and for being here.
        There is no place in the world where Iranian-backed proxy
    forces are a stabilizing feature of the terrain, is there?
        General Votel. Not that I would--I would not characterize
    it that way, Congressman.
        Mr. Gaetz. So, in July of 2015, we have the birth of the
    JCPOA. From that point in time until today, would we say that
    Iran has made the same investment in their proxy forces, a
    reduced investment in their proxy forces, or an enhanced
    investment in their proxy forces?
        General Votel. I think I would characterize it as an
    enhanced investment in their proxies and partners.
        Mr. Gaetz. So, since the JCPOA, we have got Iran putting
    more money behind proxy forces that are destabilizing in
    literally 100 percent of the circumstances in which they exist.
    In August of 2017, the Iranian Parliament votes to increase
    their military spending.
        Are there particular capabilities that we think may emerge
    from that, particular tactics that Iran is investing in as they
    use more of the cash that they now have access to to be a
    destabilizing hegemon?
        General Votel. Well, Congressman, I mean, as I mentioned
    earlier, I think, as we look at the Iranian threat, I think
    what we have seen is not only an increase quantitatively but,
    in some cases, an increase qualitatively in some of the
    capabilities that they have developed.
        They are using the opportunity of things like Yemen to--you
    know, like we go out to China Lake to test our weapon systems.
    They go to Yemen to test their weapon systems. So they are
    taking advantage of these opportunities to improve their
    capabilities around the world. So I definitely am concerned
    about this.
        Mr. Gaetz. You also test some great weapon systems off my
    district in northwest Florida we are very proud of. My district
    is also home to the 7th Special Forces Group. They do a great
    deal of work in the CENTCOM AOR, and frequently they return
    home and then deploy to SOUTHCOM [U.S. Southern Command] AOR to
    find themselves fighting a very similarly flavored enemy in
    radical Islamic extremists funded in many circumstances by Iran
    through their terror proxies.
        Are there areas within CENTCOM's AOR where there are
    training activities, where recruits are being brought in from
    other parts of the world, particularly the Western Hemisphere,
    and then essentially redeployed after receiving training in the
    CENTCOM AOR?
        General Votel. I am not sure I can answer that in this
    particular setting here. I am sure that there probably are.
        Mr. Gaetz. Okay. We may chat about that a little later
    today then. Are there particular capabilities in the
    development of Iran's terror proxies that we find them
    particularly investing in, whether that is drone technology,
    whether that is guerilla capability, the development of
    explosives?
        General Votel. I think all of the above. I think these are
    all tactics that we have seen in the past. You know, certainly
    we are concerned about the increasing use of missiles, of all
    short-range, medium-range missiles, and that type of stuff is
    very concerning. Their use of UASes [unmanned aerial systems]
    is a particular concerning emerging threat for us here that we
    are concerned about.
        But I think one, you know, of the other things is that, you
    know, I think as we look at what Iran did in--what it took Iran
    to do, took 20 years for Iran to do in Lebanon with the
    Lebanese Hezbollah, they are attempting to do in about 5 years
    with the Houthis in Yemen. This is very concerning to us.
        So I think they are accelerating their pace in their
    ability to do this, and this is something we have to be very
    concerned about.
        Mr. Gaetz. I completely agree. And I would add to the list
    activities in the Western Hemisphere where that very same game
    plan that we have seen Iran run in Syria, then on the Arabian
    Peninsula, and now in our own backyard would continue that
    troubling trend line with an increased boost in volume and in
    quality.
        As we look at the particular missile systems that you
    mentioned and the areas where they may be used, I look
    particularly to our ally Israel as a point of vulnerability. Do
    we see the--or in what capacity do we see the Iranians
    hardening their positions in southern Syria, and what feedback
    have we gotten at the mil-to-mil level from our ally Israel
    about their discomfort with that?
        General Votel. In this setting, I would just say I think we
    have seen and we have seen in public media releases here, you
    know, Israel has struck at some of these locations here that
    they have posed a threat to them.
        So, you know, I think in this setting, I think I would
    leave it at that, that there certainly are some concerns there.
        Mr. Gaetz. Great. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look
    forward to our next setting.
        I yield back.
        The Chairman. Mr. Gallego.
        Mr. Gallego. Thank you, General.
        We recently heard from Admiral Harris that munitions have
    been a great concern for him in PACOM. CENTCOM has obviously
    been using a lot of munitions in the counter-ISIL fight. So
    please describe for me the state of our current munitions in
    CENTCOM, and are you getting what you currently need?
        General Votel. Congressman, we are. And I would be happy to
    take it for the record and give you some more detail on this.
    But what we did in CENTCOM here over the last--with the support
    of the Department, was put in controlled supply rates for our
    key munitions here, and we have been managing that for some
    time. Certainly, the success we have had in Iraq and Syria has
    resulted in a lowered use of that, which has allowed us to
    cross-level within the theater to Afghanistan to address our
    issues.
        I won't comment on the broader Department-wide challenge
    with this, but I think we are being well supported right now in
    CENTCOM.
        Mr. Gallego. Good. So, to follow up a little on that then,
    from where you stand, are the other combatant commands,
    especially EUCOM, are they keeping their stocks at the
    appropriate levels they need, anticipating the kind of
    adversaries----
        General Votel. Congressman, I think that is probably a
    better question for them. I can't comment on their stockage.
        Mr. Gallego. Switching gears then, would you call Qatar a
    dependable partner?
        General Votel. I think Qatar has been a dependable partner
    to us. Certainly, we have our--my forward headquarters is
    located in Qatar. We have our air operations center there. I
    think they have been good partners to us in the past.
        Mr. Gallego. Is the discord between our GCC [Gulf
    Cooperation Council]--other partners outside of Qatar and
    especially between the Saudi and Qatar in regards to the bloc,
    has that affected any of our operations in CENTCOM?
        General Votel. It has not had a significant impact on our
    military activities. And we have made this very clear from the
    beginning that we would not allow that, and I think we have
    largely been successful in mitigating most of that.
        Mr. Gallego. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Mr. Banks.
        Mr. Banks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, General, thank you for being here today.
        Can we go back to Afghanistan for a moment, and could you
    comment more specifically on how tenuous is our 39-member-
    nation coalition? Is it continuing to weaken, or do you have
    more of an optimistic outlook on where our coalition is heading
    forward?
        General Votel. I think our coalition remains very, very
    strong in Afghanistan. You know, one of the things that
    underpins, you know, the President's roadmap for the Afghan
    National Defense [and] Security Forces was the commitment made
    by the NATO nations and the partner nations at the Brussels
    conference and in Warsaw to make sure that the support would be
    continued. And so we have seen the partner nations continue to
    sustain and in many cases increase their contributions to the
    effort.
        Mr. Banks. Just to repeat, so we are seeing in some places
    an increase. Can you mention which nations are increasing their
    commitment?
        General Votel. I think the U.K. is an example. They have
    increased some of their recent contributions.
        Mr. Banks. Okay, thank you. A moment ago, you said, in
    addressing Mr. Suozzi's comments, that Pakistan has paid a
    significant price. ``Has suffered greatly'' was your quote.
        In your testimony, though, you, quote, say: ``The Taliban
    and Haqqani leadership and fighters continue to find sanctuary
    in Pakistan,'' end quote. And then, on the next page, you talk
    about our discontinuing of IMET/FMF [International Military
    Education and Training/Foreign Military Financing] support to
    Pakistan.
        Could you dig a little bit deeper into that? I mean, what
    is working to bring Pakistan back to the table to thwart the
    Taliban and other like-minded groups in providing them
    sanctuary in Pakistan?
        General Votel. Well, you know, I think certainly the
    pressure that our government put on Pakistan as we brought out
    the strategy I think contributed to that. I think what is also
    working right now is the approach that we have in place with
    them. I think we have tried to be very clear in terms of the
    things that we need Pakistan to do for us.
        And what I have endeavored to do, not always in a public
    way but in a private way, is develop a relationship that allows
    us to provide feedback both ways. There are things, frankly,
    that Pakistan has asked of us as well. So this is a two-way
    street here. And so it is my responsibility, I think, to make
    sure that we have feedback loops in place that go back and
    forth between the things that we are doing to try to support
    each other and moving forward in that regard.
        And so, you know, I would be happy to talk a little bit
    more about this perhaps in a closed session here, but that is
    really what this is about. It is about building a bridge back,
    building the trust that has to underpin this relationship that
    has been missing from it for a long time.
        Mr. Banks. Has there been a plan to recontinue FMF and IMET
    support to Pakistan?
        General Votel. I don't think we have addressed that at this
    particular point.
        Mr. Banks. So we remain in a posture of discontinuing that
    support? Pakistan has obviously----
        General Votel. That is the current posture, and I would
    imagine hopefully in the future we will have an opportunity to
    reconsider.
        Mr. Banks. Has that been beneficial?
        General Votel. Again, I think it has created some of the
    pressure on this. In many regards, you know, Pakistan isn't
    necessarily looking for our equipment in all these cases. They
    are looking for our understanding and respect, in terms of what
    they have accomplished here. So, again, this is really about
    relationship building, and that is principally my focus here
    with my counterpart.
        Mr. Banks. Pakistan continues to provide a very important
    and strategic logistical route for our efforts into
    Afghanistan. Have you seen those logistical routes continue to
    operate fully as they have----
        General Votel. I have. I have.
        Mr. Banks [continuing]. For the past decade plus?
        General Votel. Ground lines communication, airlines
    communications, absolutely vital to us, and they have continued
    to sustain that.
        Mr. Banks. Thank you very much.
        I yield back.
        General Votel. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Mr. O'Rourke.
        Mr. O'Rourke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        General, could you tell us how many U.S. forces we have in
    Afghanistan right now? How many service members are deployed
    there as of this moment?
        General Votel. We generally don't talk numbers in public
    here, Congressman. I would be happy to----
        Mr. O'Rourke. What can you say that we can say in a public
    setting? There is lots of reporting on this. What is a ballpark
    you could talk about?
        General Votel. We are at the level that the Department of
    Defense has approved for us in this area, and we will maintain
    that going forward.
        Mr. O'Rourke. Is that public information, the level that
    the Department of Defense has?
        General Votel. I think that the Office of Secretary of
    Defense has put some numbers out. I don't recall what their
    most recent one is, but I would be happy to follow up on that
    with you.
        Mr. O'Rourke. Okay. And so I would like to ask you, how
    many U.S. service members are in Syria or operating in Syria? I
    am expecting to get a similar answer. Are you able to tell me?
        General Votel. Right. I think, you know, that the
    Department of Defense I think has basically said around 1,700
    have been there, but, again, I would offer the same response to
    you in this.
        Mr. O'Rourke. And in answer to Ms. Gabbard's question about
    what our purpose is, you responded that the sole and single
    task is to defeat ISIS. Is that, in fact, the reason for our
    military presence?
        General Votel. That is the reason for our military
    presence.
        Mr. O'Rourke. And with the defeat of ISIS, will we no
    longer have a military presence in Syria?
        General Votel. Well, when we have completed our--when we
    have completed our mission here in Syria. It involves not only
    kicking ISIS out of the areas in which they occupy, but it also
    includes the consolidation and the consolidation of gains and
    the stability that allows us to move forward with a political
    resolution to this.
        So that has been defined for us by our leadership here, and
    so that is how we are gauging our military support. That is
    part of the mission.
        Mr. O'Rourke. The first part of your answer is clear to me.
    If there are no longer ISIS combatants on the battlefield, if
    we no longer have a threat from them, I think that is probably
    something we can measure.
        The second part sounds a little mushy. Could you define
    that in terms that I and my constituents can understand so we
    will know when we have won and when service members can come
    back from Syria?
        General Votel. Right. So what we will continue to do is
    support our partners on the ground, to ensure that we can
    consolidate our gains, we can stabilize the area, we can ensure
    that international organizations, humanitarian aid
    organizations can come back, and people can get into their
    homes. And this is about creating the security environment that
    allows that and provides the time for our diplomats to pursue
    the solution that we are seeking through the United Nations in
    Syria.
        Mr. O'Rourke. So, even after ISIS is gone, there is an
    indefinite military commitment from the United States of
    America, from the description you just gave me. What is the
    legal justification to be there after ISIS is no longer there?
        General Votel. Well, the fact is ISIS is still there, and
    that is what we are dealing with right now.
        Mr. O'Rourke. But the question I asked you is: After ISIS
    is defeated and you have accomplished the task, what is the
    legal justification for U.S. service members to be deployed in
    Syria?
        General Votel. Well, the principal thing will be to ensure
    that ISIS does not reemerge in this particular area. Even
    though they have been eliminated from controlling terrain does
    not mean that ISIS is not present in this area. I think we have
    been very clear on that. So we have to ensure that ISIS isn't
    given the opportunity to resurge here.
        With regard to your question on the legal authority of
    this, again, I would cite that, you know, the principal legal
    authority here was self-defense of Iraq in terms of this, and
    the unwillingness and inability of the Syrian regime to address
    this particular threat that posed a threat to, not just the
    country of Syria and Iraq, but really to a much broader group
    of countries around the world.
        Mr. O'Rourke. My understanding is that the administration
    has used the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force,
    whose justification is premised on the attacks of 9/11 and
    stopping those who attacked this country from being able to do
    so again.
        And I think the logical conclusion of your answer to my
    question about our presence after ISIS is defeated is that the
    U.S. military can be in every country that there was ever an
    ISIS presence just so that there will not be an ISIS presence
    going forward, and I think that is a recipe for disaster. We
    will not have successful oversight or accountability or
    prosecution of that war, because we cannot define its goals or
    the strategy.
        I yield back.
        The Chairman. General, what happened when we left Iraq
    completely in 2009 after we had supposedly defeated al-Qaida in
    Iraq?
        General Votel. Well, Chairman, we saw the rise of ISIS, and
    we saw the inability of the Iraqi security forces to
    effectively address it as it was growing.
        The Chairman. Mr. Hice.
        Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        General, according to the Worldwide Threat Assessment, the
    most recent one, Director Coats and the intelligence community
    assessed that Iran's support for the popular mobilization
    committee and Shia militants remain the primary threat to U.S.
    personnel in Iraq. Do you agree with that assessment?
        General Votel. Congressman, I do think they certainly could
    pose a threat to our forces on the ground. This is something we
    are very vigilant for and are paying very, very close attention
    to. We have not seen that threat manifest itself at this
    particular point, but it is certainly something that we are
    very cognizant of.
        Mr. Hice. How is CENTCOM working with the Iraqi Government
    and other regional partners to try to address this?
        General Votel. Well, you know, certainly the Iraqi
    Government has a law in place that addresses paramilitary
    forces. And what we are doing as part of our broader security
    sector reform support that we provide to the Government of Iraq
    is encouraging them to take the steps to bring those forces to
    the right size and to ensure they have the right leadership and
    they are beholden to the Government of Iraq. So the principal
    way that we will do this is through our advice and, where
    necessary, our assistance to the Government of Iraq.
        Mr. Hice. Okay. I would like to follow up a little bit on
    Mr. Gallagher's questions a little while ago and just kind of
    an overall perspective. What is CENTCOM's role in trying to
    curb Iranian influence, particularly in Iraq, but in the entire
    region?
        General Votel. Well, you know, I think one of the principal
    roles that we have, as I mentioned, is assuring our partners
    and building partnerships around the region and helping our
    partners be resilient against this particular threat and making
    sure that they have the wherewithal to protect themselves. So
    certainly developing partnerships and assuring our partners is
    a key piece of this.
        Another key piece of this is making sure that we have the
    right military capabilities in place to deter Iran from taking
    action, particularly with their growing and increasingly
    capable missile capability that they are developing. So we have
    a deterrence role.
        And then, finally, I think we have a competition role. We
    have to challenge them for some of the things that they are
    doing. And we certainly can do that militarily, but we can also
    do that with our other instruments of national power that we
    have available for us.
        Mr. Hice. Okay. Thank you. And that actually raises some
    questions that I think would probably be more appropriate in
    our next session.
        But, with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Mr. Bacon.
        Mr. Bacon. General Votel, thank you for your leadership,
    and I appreciate and thank the men and women who serve in the
    United States Central Command. I was a four-time deployed
    veteran of the command and proud of that.
        I would like to drill a little bit more into the Iranian
    influence in Syria itself and that specific problem set. Iran
    has propped up Assad, I think maybe more so than Russia, but
    the two together have clearly been working together. They got
    advisers. They have sent fighters to Syria. They encourage
    Hezbollah to be supportive. Shia militants from other countries
    have been sent there. They have sent weapons, cash, petroleum.
    They have recently launched a drone, it appears. I think it was
    an Iranian drone versus a Syrian drone.
        So what I am hearing from you--and please correct me if I
    am wrong, if my characterization is not right--that we do have
    a grander strategy that focuses on Iran in your AOR, but in
    Syria itself, we really don't have a strategy that limits
    Iran's influence in Syria. Is that a true characterization?
        General Votel. I am not sure I would necessarily
    characterize it that way. There are things that are appropriate
    for the military to do, and that is the angle that I talk
    about, but there are certainly other parts of our government
    and other capabilities that we have within our national
    resources that can address Iran's malign activities, whether
    they are in Syria or in other places.
        Mr. Bacon. But you would agree it would be unacceptable for
    Iran to have a long-term presence in western Syria?
        General Votel. It would be unacceptable if that presence
    resulted in threats to our other partners or in further
    destabilization of the region.
        Mr. Bacon. Would you say it is acceptable or unacceptable
    for Iran to build a land bridge from Iran, through Iraq, Syria,
    to the borders of Israel?
        General Votel. I would say it is unacceptable if the
    purpose of that land bridge is to move lethal technologies and
    advanced capabilities in the hands of other fighters who may
    use those to attack their neighbors.
        Mr. Bacon. What would you say was the purpose of Iran
    launching that drone into Israel? Was that, indeed, Iran, or
    could it have been Syrian?
        General Votel. You know, I am not sure. I think that is
    probably a better question for the Iranians here, in terms of
    that.
        Mr. Bacon. There seems to be a recent decline in Iranian
    harassment of our ships in the Persian Gulf and in the straits.
    Is that true, and why do you think that may be?
        General Votel. It is true. We have seen a decrease in some
    of the interactions that we have seen. I think this is
    principally because of some of the strong rhetoric or the
    strong--the discussion we have had about the lack of
    professionalism of Iranian maritime forces and how they operate
    in this region. I think that has got their attention.
        I also do think they are perhaps concerned about our
    stronger position on some of Iran's activities beyond just
    their nuclear weapons program here, and so they are paying
    attention to that.
        I would tell you, Mr. Congressman, that one of the things
    we are concerned about is their increasing use of UAVs
    [ummanned aerial vehicles]. So, while we may see decreases with
    some of their activities in this area, I am equally concerned
    about their increasing use of UAVs that could pose a threat to
    our maritime activities in the region.
        Mr. Bacon. Thank you. Are we actively interdicting
    shipments to the Hezbollah in Lebanon from Iran?
        General Votel. I think that is probably beyond the
    discussion in this room.
        Mr. Bacon. Going back to a previous question on Joint
    STARS, we are being asked by the Air Force to determine should
    we recapitalize the Joint STARS with a new airframe or let that
    go away and go to some new capabilities. And we are getting
    conflicting advice and counsel on that.
        I would love to have your perspective. Do you need more
    Joint STAR capabilities or less, or do you have thoughts for us
    at the HASC [House Armed Services Committee]?
        General Votel. You know, as a combatant commander, you
    know, I am very dependent upon the services to provide us the
    right capabilities. And they always do, and we are very, very
    satisfied with that. So I am less concerned about which
    platform it is on and more concerned with the capability that
    is coming our way.
        Certainly, the Joint STARS provides not only ground
    movement targeting indicator capability that is very important
    in my theater and other theaters, but it also provides, you
    know, battlespace management command and control that comes
    along with. These are key capabilities.
        What I am trying to achieve with our use of ISR is layered
    ISR. I want to be able to draw all these capabilities into an
    ISR scheme that meets our requirements in this particular
    theater.
        Mr. Bacon. Well, again, thank you for being here today and
    answering our questions. We are grateful to you.
        I yield back.
        General Votel. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Mr. Hunter.
        Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, thank you for
    being here. If you stick around long enough, you get to ask a
    question, whether you are good or not, if you are there.
        I guess the first question is, we have been working on
    getting some kinds of UAVs, whether they are Predators or they
    are whatevers, to our allies in the Middle East, whether it is
    Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, UAE [United Arab Emirates], and we
    have been stopped. We have even offered them the ability to use
    U.S. contractors to do it so that they can prosecute their own
    targets, and we can use them instead of using our own.
        So the question is: Can we tolerate a reality where,
    because of self-imposed constraints, we can't sell our allies
    our UAV technology, but the Chinese can--and you have already
    spoken to that point--but when it comes to technology, I think
    we are missing a big advantage there. Could you comment on
    that?
        General Votel. I think it is--you know, as you are alluding
    to here, I think the opportunity for us to improve our
    interoperability through common systems, whether it is ISR or
    other systems we have out here, I think these are always
    opportunities that we have to pursue wherever we can.
        Mr. Hunter. Do you support us sharing our UAV technology
    with our allies?
        General Votel. I certainly think it deserves serious
    consideration.
        Mr. Hunter. Thank you. The second question is: In terms of
    Iran and a ratline that goes from Iran through Syria down to
    Israel, I have got big poster boards with Soleimani with his
    arm around every single Iraqi corps commander and militia guy.
    They are all buddies. Soleimani is now handpicking the guys
    that we are equipping and training, but that is the fight that
    we are in right now.
        So the question is--and you have already spoken to this--
    but specifically, do you think it is going to be possible to
    extract Iran out of Syria and Iraq if there is an end to what
    is happening in Syria? Because they are dug in deeply now.
        General Votel. Yeah. I think there certainly is an
    opportunity in Iraq through our strong relationships that we
    are developing here, and I think that, you know, one of the
    things that I have observed about Iraq over the last year has
    been their outreach to other partners across the region,
    whether it is Jordan, whether it is Saudi Arabia, whether it is
    Kuwait, whether it is Turkey, the other key Sunni nations in
    the area. And so they are very much emerging as, you know,
    trying to be much more involved in the region, which I think is
    a very positive thing. And I think it connotes the fact that
    Iraq is for Iraqis. And while they live in a difficult
    neighborhood with difficult neighbors and they have to deal
    with that, that they are principally concerned with Iraq.
        Mr. Hunter. Well, let's bring it back right now because,
    right now, we are playing the enemy of our enemy is our friend.
    That is what we are playing right now. If the Iranians are the
    major power players with weapons and our training and our gear
    right now with their handpicked militia guys, the Iraqis can
    reach out all they want to, but the power is with the Iranians
    in Iraq and Syria right now.
        Is that not where the power lies, in your opinion, the
    actual power, and I am talking power by force?
        General Votel. Well, I think there certainly is influence
    here, there is no doubt about that. But, again, I do see within
    the Iraqi leadership a very strong sense of independence and a
    desire to protect Iraq. And so I think these are things that we
    have to continue to build on.
        Mr. Hunter. So let me just lay it out then one last time.
    You are confident that in the next 10 years we are not going to
    see an Iranian-controlled ratline where the Iranians can go
    from Tehran through Syria down to Israel on a high-speed road
    with M1 Abrams tanks that we have trained them on. You do not
    see that happening?
        General Votel. Congressman, I wouldn't speculate in that
    particular regard. What I would tell you is, I think our best
    opportunity to prevent something like that is to stay engaged
    and to----
        Mr. Hunter. I wouldn't disagree with you on that.
        General Votel [continuing]. And to continue to be the
    valuable partner that we had been for them, and to continue to
    professionalize their forces and their capabilities so that
    they are beholden to themselves and not beholden to others to
    do things for them, and they don't allow their terrain to be
    exploited in the manner that you highlighted.
        Mr. Hunter. As you have seen, General, as we train and
    equip and try to pick sides, we are not always right on who we
    end up helping. And that has turned around to, you know, bite
    us a few times. And I really hope that, right now, with the
    Iranians we are not doing that in a much bigger way than we
    have messed up in the past. So thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. General, I want to follow on two questions
    that I don't think you have been asked directly. You started
    the hearing talking about considerable success in the fight to
    eliminate ISIS from controlling any territory. Is there or will
    there be a reduction in U.S. people and U.S. capabilities from
    Iraq, especially due to that success?
        General Votel. Well, as part of our alignment process there
    already has been. And, you know, the success we have had has
    given us the ability to move some of these critical resources,
    whether it is ISR or fighter aircraft or some of our
    engineering capability or medical capability that we required
    on the ground and we have been able to reposition that within
    the theater, Afghanistan in particular, to make sure that
    General Nicholson has what he needs to be successful. So we
    already have seen that.
        And, of course, as the situation continues to mature, we
    will continue to make smart decisions on this. We don't want to
    keep one more soldier, one more piece of equipment there than
    is needed to support the mission. And that is what we are
    pursuing, but we are trying to do it as smartly as we can.
        The Chairman. Yeah. Because we also don't want to repeat
    the mistakes of the past and leave completely.
        The other thing, at one point, the assessment we got was
    the most capable terrorist enemy we faced was AQAP, especially
    in their bombmaking and so forth. You have talked a little bit
    about al-Qaida and ISIS in Yemen. Is there still a terrorist
    threat that emanates from Yemen?
        General Votel. There is, Chairman, and I think--first of
    all, I think our efforts over the last year have been very
    effective at addressing many of the concerns that we had with
    al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. And I think we have
    addressed their leadership, their media capability, their
    external operations capability, certainly some of their
    explosive capability that has been inherent in this
    organization.
        But I think with al-Qaida, I think it is important to
    always understand what their long-term objectives are. And they
    are a very patient and savvy organization, and I think we
    always have to be concerned about al-Qaida. And so it is
    absolutely vital to not take the pressure off now but to keep
    the pressure on them and make sure that we complete this effort
    against them.
        The Chairman. While it is a complex situation, you talked
    about the humanitarian, the Houthis, and all that is going on,
    I just think it is important not to lose sight of the fact that
    there continues to be a terrorist threat that emanates from
    there.
        I think that we are good for now. Thank you for being here.
        We will adjourn this open session, and within about 5
    minutes, reconvene upstairs. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the committee proceeded in
    closed session.]
    =======================================================================

                                A P P E N D I X

                               February 27, 2018

    =======================================================================

                  PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                               February 27, 2018

    =======================================================================

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    =======================================================================

                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                               February 27, 2018

    =======================================================================

                       QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. TSONGAS

        Ms. Tsongas. There has been some question to how many service
    members are currently serving in Afghanistan. Can you give me a current
    number?
        Does that include temporary, or rotational, forces?
        Do you have a sense of the number of civilian contractors? Who
    keeps track of that?
        How are contractors part of the by, with and thru strategy? What is
    their focus? How many contract personnel are there in Afghanistan?
        Do you anticipate needing more service members? If so, how many?
        General Votel. [The information is for official use only and
    retained in the committee files.]
                                     ______

                      QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. O'ROURKE
        Mr. O'Rourke. There has been some question to how many service
    members are currently serving in Afghanistan. Can you give me a current
    number? Does that include temporary, or rotational, forces? Do you have
    a sense of the number of civilian contractors? Who keeps track of that?
    How are contractors part of the by, with and thru strategy? What is
    their focus? How many contract personnel are there in Afghanistan? Do
    you anticipate needing more service members? If so, how many?
        General Votel. [The information is for official use only and
    retained in the committee files.]
                                     ______

                        QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. COOK
        Mr. Cook. After recently visiting the UAE, Saudi and Egypt, I was
    left with a deep concern about the loyalties and interactions of Qatar.
    While Qatar is an ally in some respects, their deteriorating
    relationship with our other allies in the region, and their alleged
    support for the Muslim Brotherhood and relationship with Iran are
    troubling. How does General Votel and CENTCOM see our future
    relationship with Qatar playing out? Is there a back-up plan to move
    our base and forces from Qatar if the relationship deteriorates any
    further? Does he think the Qatari government is making efforts to
    improve the relationship with CENTCOM and the U.S.?
        General Votel. [The information is for official use only and
    retained in the committee files.]
                                     ______

                      QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. STEFANIK
        Ms. Stefanik. As best you can in this open forum, can you provide
    an overview of how you are approaching cyber operations to support your
    ongoing efforts across CENTCOM? And how specifically is U.S. CYBER
    COMMAND supporting your efforts?
        a) In terms of adversarial cyber capabilities, are you more
    concerned with State-sponsored activities such as those exhibited by
    Iran, or non-state actors such as AQ and ISIS? Any concern about
    Russian cyber activities within your AOR?
        b) We have heard a great deal about the need to speed up decision-
    making for cyber warfare and cyber operations. What has been your
    experience in making decisions to support cyber operations; would you
    agree with these assessments that we need to perhaps speed up the
    decision-making process, including those within the interagency?
        General Votel. [The information is for official use only and
    retained in the committee files.]
        Ms. Stefanik. This question deals with countering adversarial
    propaganda and disinformation efforts: What do you think is your most
    effective tool as a combatant commander to counter adversarial
    disinformation efforts including those posed by ISIS, Russia, and Iran?
        a) How do you work with the State Department? Does the Global
    Engagement Center support your operations? Are we doing enough? What
    else remains?
        b) The BBC recently conducted an open-source analysis that showed
    that ISIS media is showing signs of a recovery after a sharp decline.
    Does analysis match your experiences? Can you discuss recent trends in
    ISIS media and propaganda?
        c) What role does DOD play here as compared to the State
    Department?
        d) Do you have all of the authorities you need?
        General Votel. [The information is classified and retained in the
    committee files.]
        Ms. Stefanik. This question deals with the changing dynamics on the
    ground in Syria. More and more, our forces are engaging Russian and
    Syrian regime proxies, as most recently seen in the aggressive fighting
    in Der az-Zur (Dare-a-Zur). The defeat of ISIS now reveals the
    fingerprints of the larger geopolitical fight we are engaged in,
    putting at risk current authorities, frameworks, and partnerships. And,
    not to mention, the considerable risk to our forces on the ground in an
    already clouded and fractured battlefield.
        a) What is your long-term view of U.S. presence and investments in
    the region?
        b) What enduring counterterrorism capabilities do we need to be
    considering given the remaining threats on the ground ?
        General Votel. [The information is for official use only and
    retained in the committee files.]
        Ms. Stefanik. The recent incident of overseas fitness trackers that
    telegraphed the positions and data of our servicemen and women overseas
    reminds us that the Internet-of-Things continues to change the game.
        a) Can you talk about how this is impacting your approach to force
    protection. What did we learn from this recent incident and what
    changes have been made?
        b) In a broader sense, and as a combatant commander, are you
    concerned about the proliferation of more than 50 billion connected
    sensors and devices? How does this impact your intelligence frameworks
    and collection, for example?
        General Votel. [The information is for official use only and
    retained in the committee files.]

                                      [all]