The particular issue of concern to me is the issue of ground troops. We're not going to defeat ISIL strictly from the air.

If we get sequestered again--because we had an $8 billion math problem to solve in a single year in 2015.

Does the theory of deterrence work against a madman or a suicidal fanatic?

Ultimately, it will have to happen, because you won't have a secure and working government unless they have control of a military, and, in this case, numerous militias across that country.

We will be unable to execute the Defense Strategic Guidance if we are sequestered again.

I share my colleagues' concern that we are facing a new round of challenges around the world and we really have to revisit that decision.

I think it's very important to be as clear as we can with the North Koreans about what the rules of engagement are.

I do not know anybody that is talking about additional funds.

Do you think we should reexamine those decisions? It just seems like we are reducing our force structure at a time of... unprecedented threats and danger to this country.

We are talking about major capital expenditures, and I do not know anybody that is talking about additional funds.

One thing I want to communicate is that you keep in touch with us.

the best bulwark against terrorism is stability.

I think it is very important.

I would hope that our rules of engagement can be rather clear in order to avoid the possibility of hostilities inadvertently escalating.

It's unbelievably important for you gentlemen to give your unvarnished, best advice up the chain of command.

I think that was a tremendous strategic mistake in retrospect, because the world has changed and now suddenly we are in competition with Russia again.

Are we developing a strategy and a doctrine for dealing with what is essentially a new kind of war?

We can't have our friends not getting along. And so, let's try to find ways to work together.

I think, hopefully, that will be a spur to these discussions.

prevention should be a big part of the mission.

I am concerned that we are making decisions and doing drawdowns and force reductions based upon old news.

Deterrence has been a theory and a doctrine that has served this Nation well for 70 years.

We do not want to militarize the border, but to the extent we can coordinate better, utilize the resources that you will have, General, in your capabilities to work with our civilian authorities, that is I think a very high priority.

I do see great potential in this.

Therefore, getting rid of Assad should be a priority