Experts suggest that terrorist interest in utilizing chemical agents has increased.

We know that terrorist groups have long strived to employ chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear, or CBRNE, materials in their attacks.

To save one civilian casualty, but then allow ISIS to murder thousands of people on the ground is absolutely contradictory.

We need--there needs to be a consistent perception of progress being made.

A big concern that I have is the incoherence of a strategy in the region especially vis-a-vis Iran, the elephant in the room.

I think that incoherent strategy is impacting some of the lack of commitment of our allies in a political nature, specifically in Iraq.

I do want to say that I do have serious concerns about what appears to be an incoherence in our regional strategy related to Iran specifically.

What is the logic of a policy that restricts the use of air power to avoid the possibility of collateral damage while allowing the certainty of Islamic State crimes against humanity.

Sometimes, however, the magnitude of these emergencies will exceed the capabilities of these responders.

I hope we can learn more about DOD's progress in that regard today.

Like politics, all disasters are local.