First, I would like to thank Chairman McCain for scheduling this important hearing to discuss threats to U.S. national security and our strategy for countering such threats.  I would also like to thank our witnesses for their participation in today’s hearing. Given the breadth of their national security expertise, I welcome their thoughts and suggestions on specific steps they believe the Department could undertake to help us better address the complex national security issues confronting the U.S. today.

The most immediate threat to the safety of Americans at home and abroad remains the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant or ISIL and remnants of al Qaeda.  I recently returned from the region where I met with our military commanders, diplomats, and senior political leaders.  Militarily, ISIL is on the path to defeat in Iraq.  The Iraqi Security Forces, enabled by U.S. and Coalition train, advise, and assist efforts, coupled with airstrikes, intelligence, and other support, are in the process of displacing ISIL from Mosul and are expected, in the coming months, to significantly disrupt the ability of ISIL to hold any key terrain within Iraq.  Nevertheless, ISIL will likely continue to act as a subversive force in Iraq for the foreseeable future. 

In Syria, isolation operations around Raqqah have commenced, but the task of supporting forces on the ground who will ultimately enter, clear, and hold Raqqah is months away.  Unlike Iraq, we have no partner in Syria for humanitarian, stabilization, and reconstruction efforts.  Even after Raqqah is retaken, the security situation will remain extremely difficult as the remnants of ISIL seek refuge in the largely ungoverned areas of eastern Syria along the Euphrates River and as the broader Syrian civil war rages on.

I also recently visited Afghanistan where political tensions between President Ghani and Chief Executive Officer Abdullah appear to be receding as the 2016 traditional fighting season comes to a close.  Our Commander in Afghanistan, General Nicholson, recently described the conflict between the Afghan Government and the Taliban as “an equilibrium in favor of the government, because they are controlling the majority of the population.”

Decisions earlier this year by the President to maintain approximately 8,400 U.S. troops in Afghanistan into 2017 and to provide robust support to the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) have laid the foundation for a sustainable U.S. and international security presence in Afghanistan.  The decisions also sent an important message to Afghans, the Taliban, and others in the region – including Pakistan – regarding the commitment of the United States to continued progress in Afghanistan.  Assuming the continued invitation of the Afghan Government and the support of its people, I hope the next Administration will follow a conditions-based approach to U.S. presence in Afghanistan that provides flexibility on the number of military personnel deployed in support of our longer-term strategy there.

Over the past few months, the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive of Action (JCPOA) has largely proceeded as planned.  And while the JCPOA is having its intended impact in the nuclear arena, Iran’s behavior with respect to its proxy forces across the region has not improved and – as I discussed during my recent visit with the Commander of our naval forces in the Middle East – Iran’s unsafe and unprofessional actions in the maritime arena continue.  How the new Administration chooses to proceed with respect to Iran will be an important decision.  It is critical that we not cede space or territory to Iranian influence, but it is similarly critical that we not take actions that escalate tensions unnecessarily and can be blamed on the United States.  For example, as many experts have pointed out, the likely result of the U.S. unilaterally withdrawing from the JCPOA would be a resumption of the Iranian nuclear weapons program without the ability to re-impose effective sanctions, which rely on enforcement by our partners around the world.

In Europe, we continue to bear witness to a number of destabilizing factors, including adversarial actions by Russia, acts of terrorism, and sustained refugee and migrant flows.  Such instability is acutely on display in Ukraine, where Russian-backed separatists commit daily ceasefire violations, with seemingly endless resupply from Russia, and disinformation campaigns continue to undermine public confidence in Ukrainian government institutions.  This confluence of destabilizing factors make the multinational efforts under way to strengthen Ukraine’s capability to defend itself and to decrease corruption, increase accountability, and reform institutional structures all the more important.

In the Pacific, China has alarmed its neighbors in the South China Sea by militarizing land features in a body of water that is critical for trade and regional peace, and refusing to acknowledge the international laws and norms that govern.

Kim Jong-un continues to destabilize the Korean Peninsula with nuclear and ballistic missile developments, and sanctions are not working to bring the North Koreans to the negotiating table.  Regimes as authoritarian and insulated as North Korea's are brittle and prone to collapse.  How we would deal with such a collapse, and the security and humanitarian problems that would ensue, is an ongoing debate and challenge for U.S Forces Korea and the PACOM commander.