FEDERALhearing transcript

High Impact

Senate Hearing on U.S. Counterterrorism and Irregular Warfare Strategy

Original title: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE POLICY AND PROGRAMS TO COUNTER THREATS TO THE UNITED STATES FROM TERRORISM AND IRREGULAR WARFARE

January 1, 2017

national security counterterrorism irregular warfare Department of Defense foreign policy

Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.

The Frame

What this does

This hearing examines the strategic risk and operational effectiveness of U.S. military efforts to counter global terrorist threats, which directly influences the allocation of defense resources and the scope of U.S. military engagement abroad.

Who is mentioned in the record

Potentially affected actors named in the source documents. Mention is not a position.

Department of Defense

The Department is responsible for implementing the counterterrorism policies and strategies discussed during the hearing.

U.S. Military Personnel

Military personnel are tasked with executing the counterterrorism and irregular warfare operations reviewed by the subcommittee.

What changed

Last recorded activity January 1, 2017.

What's next

Next step not available in the current record.

Summary

The Senate Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities held a hearing on April 21, 2015, to review Department of Defense policies regarding global terrorism and . Witnesses from the Department of Defense and the provided testimony on how the U.S. is adapting its strategy to address instability in regions like Syria, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia.

Key Facts

The hearing took place on April 21, 2015, in room SR-222 of the Russell Senate Office Building.
The subcommittee received testimony regarding the Department of Defense's counterterrorism activities and policy.
The hearing included an open session followed by a closed session for classified discussions.
Chairwoman Fischer expressed concern regarding the 'moderate' level of risk associated with current U.S. counterterrorism strategies.
The discussion highlighted instability in specific regions, including ISIL's expansion in Syria and Mosul, the collapse of the government in Yemen, and ongoing activity by al-Shabaab in Somalia and Kenya.
The subcommittee reviewed the effectiveness of the current U.S. strategy of targeting terrorists while supporting local partners.

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the purpose of this hearing?

The hearing was held to allow the Senate Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities to question Department of Defense officials about current U.S. policies and programs for countering terrorism and .

Who testified at the hearing?

Michael D. Lumpkin, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and , and Brigadier General Scott A. Howell, Deputy Director for Special Operations and Counterterrorism on the .

Was the entire hearing open to the public?

No, the hearing consisted of an open session for initial testimony followed by a closed session.

Why It Matters

News Coverage

No news coverage found yet. Articles are indexed twice daily.

Discoveries

Patterns POLISCOPE noticed across the record. These are observations to investigate, not conclusions.

policy shift90% confidence

Strategic Risk Assessment

The hearing highlights a specific tension between the Department of Defense's 'moderate' risk strategy and the subcommittee's concern that this approach may fail to address smaller, emerging threats.

Deb Fischer Department of Defense

Connected Entities

personMichael D. Lumpkin“Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict”Map →

personBill Nelson“Ranking Member of the Subcommittee”Map →

personDeb Fischer“Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities”Map →

organizationSubcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities“Senate committee conducting the hearing”Map →

personScott A. Howell“Brigadier General, Deputy Director for Special Operations and Counterterrorism (”Map →

Sources

Open source document

www.govinfo.gov

Analysis Score

0–100

Significance75
How much this matters to a regular citizen
Controversy40
Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
Entertainment10
Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
Buzz15
Current news / social attention level

Publisher tools