Transcripts For CSPAN Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20150312

Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you to all of our witnesses. Thank you for your extraordinary gestures to come back to this committee over and over again both in public and private to work on this most important question that the Foreign Relations committee and Congress Takes up, the question of when to commit u. S. Personnel into war. I remain as frustrated as many of my colleagues over this question over definitions. Every different member of the administration that we talk to seems to have a slightly different interpretation of what these words mean and i cant blame them. As secretary carter said, there is no historical operational definition of these words. I think the lack of consistency has hampered our efforts to get on the same page together. If we resort to just an understanding that these words mean something less than what happened in iraq and afghanistan, that really is no limitation at all. I am barely a lawyer. I practiced for four years, but i remember the concept of statues being voided because of the vagueness. I fear this would suffer that same problem if we were not able to get a consistent understanding of what those terms mean. I want to ask, one point of clarification on a piece of this terminology. That is back to you, secretary carter. I was pleased by the language in the draft from the administration defining associated forces, including this limitation that it would be restricted to organizations that were actively engaged in fights against the United States. I just want to clarify, you said in your testimony it would be limited to associated forces thats where actively engaged against the United States but the language actually says engaged in hostilities against the United States or our partners. As to the the question of boko haram, if it is covered under this. So long as they are engaged in hostilities against the coalition partner, isnt it true that this authorization would give the United States the ability, subject to the other restrictions in the authorization, to engage in hostilities against that organization . I think you are reading it right. Given that reading, let me ask again, would boko haram, pledging allegiance to isis, be covered if the country in which they were engaging in hostilities was a partner to the United States. Defense secretary carter i cant give you a legal answer but i can give you a commonsense answer. This is a an aumf that focuses on isis. We have authorities already alluded to in the 2001, which also cover other situations, including some that might involve boko haram that allows us to take action to protect ourselves in that case. But this is focused on isil and the associated forces there. When they engage in operations against us or our Coalition Partners, that can be interpreted but has not yet been interpreted to cover other groups like boko haram. Just to be clear, under the 2001 authorities, this is important to me, because we have to protect ourselves, there are authorities under the 2001 also that could extend to boko haram depending on their behavior and the kinds of actions we need to take to protect ourselves. These are always in my experience, and again, im not a lawyer, just observing this as secretary of defense, our councils try to interpret the law and such a way that we are acting lawfully and consistent with the intent of the legislation and are able to take actions to protect ourselves. Sometimes they get to those determinations when a particular instance arises. I think it is important when we have this this is the last point i will make to err on the side of caution of flexibility. I think someone said earlier that this language could allow an awful lot. The how part of the provision. It does. The president , if youre hearing Different Things, the thing i would listen to is what the president says. He said he does not foresee and this language does not authorize the kind of thing that iraq and afghanistan represented. And he gave examples of the kind of campaign that we intend to wage, which secretary kerry noted earlier. Ones in which we are enabling a force which provides the lasting victory against isil. That is our approach because that is the right approach to get a lasting victory against isil. But i think in my role and the chairmans role, some latitude there in the language is appreciated because we need to be able to do what we need to do to protect ourselves. This encompasses the campaign against isil as we now foresee it and one can reasonably foresee it. That is essential because we need to win this campaign. A minute remaining. There has been a lot of talk about sending consistent, bipartisan messages to our enemies. I agree. I did not think there has been Much Division on the message that we have been sending to crisis. We stand united that we should take this fight to them. In the last few days there has been significant division on the message were sending to iran. An exceptional, i would argue unprecedented, letter from 47 of our colleagues to the ayatollah himself, that many of us believe has the effect and intent of undermining the authority of the president. Secretary kerry, you are here before us, this is a subject of great debate within the senate today. What do you believe are the ramifications of this letter . What do you believe is your interpretation of the facts of that letter, that state that any agreement signed by the United States expires as soon as another president is sworn in . Share with us your thoughts on whether this is helpful or hurtful to our efforts to try to divorce iran from any future nuclear ambition. Secretary of state kerry my reaction to the letter was utter disbelief. During my 29 years here in the senate, i have never heard of, nor even heard of it being proposed, anything comparable to this. If i had, i can guarantee that no matter who was president or what the issue was, i would have certainly rejected it. I think nobody is questioning anybodys right to dissent. Any senator can go to the floor any day and raise any of the questions that were raised in that. But to write to the leaders right in the middle of negotiation, particularly the leader they have criticized other people for even engaging with or writing to, to write and suggest that they are going to give a constitutional lesson which by the way, was absolutely incorrect, is quite stunning. This letter ignores more than two centuries of precedence in the conduct of american foreignpolicy. Formal treaties obviously require the advice and consent of the senate. That is in the constitution. But the vast majority of International Arrangements and agreements do not. Around the world today, we have all kinds of executive agreements that we deal with. Protection of our troops, the recent agreement with afghanistan, any number of noncontroversial and broadly supported Foreign Policy bills. The executive agreement is a necessary tool used by president s from both parties used for centuries, literally. It is recognized and accepted by congress from the earliest period of american history. With respect to the talks, we have been clear from the beginning. We are not negotiating a legally binding plan. We are negotiating a plan that will have a capacity for enforcement. We dont even have diplomatic relations with iran right now. The senators letter erroneously asserts this is a legally binding plan. It is incorrect when it says that congress can actually modify the terms of an agreement at any time. That is flat wrong. They do not have the right to modify an agreement reached, executive to executive, between leaders of the country. Could another president come in with another attitude . No president , if this agreement meets its task and does what it is supposed to do, in conjunction with china, russia france, germany, Great Britain all of whom are going to sign or not sign off, i would like to see the next president of this country say this is good, turn around and nullify it on behalf of the United States. That is not going to happen. I have to tell you, knowing what we know about this, this risks undermining the confidence that foreign governments in thousands of important agreements, committed to between the United States and other countries. It purports to tell the world that if you want confidence in your dealings with america, you have to negotiate with 535 members of congress. That is both untrue and profoundly a bad suggestion to make. That aside from the legalities this letter also raises question of judgment and policy. We know that there are people in iran opposed to any negotiation. We know that a comprehensive solution is not going to happen if irans leaders are not willing to make hard choices about their nuclear program. We know that a Nuclear Armed iran is unacceptable. Mr. Secretary, i know that is a wellwritten speech this is not a speech. This is about the impact of this irresponsible letter. That letter does not have Legal Authority. I think you have to ask, what people are trying to accomplish. The author of the letter says he does not want the agreement to be made and he thinks that before the judgment is made, it is a mistake. Im asked by one senator what the impact is and i am laying out what the impact is. Im sorry if people do not want to hear it. Five minutes and 26 seconds later, i would say that i did not sign the letter and i am very disappointed that you have gone back back on your statement that any agreement must pass muster with congress. The way we pass muster is we vote. I think all of us are very disappointed with the veto threat and the stiff arming that is taking place. Let me just senator gardner. You have the right to vote any day. Secretary carter, secretary kerry, general dempsey, i want to thank you all for testifying today. This issue of authorizing military force is one of the most serious issues congress can consider. I am concerned about perhaps mixed messages from the administration regarding the isil threat. On march 3, general austin stated that isis is losing its fight against us yet only a week earlier, on february 26, director clapper said the organization remains a formidable and brutal threat and is increasing its influence. The threat from isil is real and requires a carefully coordinated strategy to ensure its complete destruction. I look forward to hearing how we can ensure its bipartisan success. I want to understand the details and to fully know that youre not unnecessarily restraining or restricting our ability to win. Secretary carter, in your remarks, you say that, i cannot tell you that our mission to defeat isil be completed in three years, the sunset clause proposed by the president is a sensible provision. You heard the senators all talk about this. If the aumf is not authorized, in three years, the president can continue to use the authorities . That is correct. That is the legal interpretation of the 2001 aumf. The stated intent of the president is to revisit the 2001 aumf after this one as well. He has said that and that is a totally different subject. In your verbal comments, you stated that, what a shame it would be to have a safe haven. And i believe you are referring to the geographic limitations. Could the three year time limitation be interpreted as a safe haven as well . Defense secretary carter it certainly shouldnt be. It has not by anyone involved in drafting the aumf. It is, as i said, it is not a number or time period derived from our thinking about the campaign. It is derived from the constitution and the election cycle. It is for sure the that in our system that there will be a new president in three years. It is for sure that he or she will have had one year to get themselves on their feet. Therefore, it foresees and leaves latitude for this to be revisited. That is something i respect as a consequence of our political system. It is not the consequence of a battlefield dynamic or campaign we are waging. Obviously, we hope to wrap it up as soon as possible. But i specifically said i cannot tell you it will be over in three years. We have had testimony from others who have talked about the ability to go for three years, that we would not be able to defeat in three years but what we would be able to do in three years is it the right time . Should there be no time limit . Defense secretary carter the number three has to do with our political system, not the defeat of isis. I respect the people who do not want a sunset, but i think the logic of three years derives from our political system. There is no foreseeing how long it will take to defeat isil, any more than you can begin any campaign and know when it will end. Secretary carter, you said in your comments that enduring, i believe it was in response to senator cardin, that enduring is not afghanistan and iraq. Could you give a clearer definition than the term enduring . Defense secretary carter the president , when he explained the provision which describes how the campaign is authorized to be waged, explained that he was not, he was not saying, and this was very sensible to me enumerating the things that we could do. He was setting a limit, which is the language of enduring offense of ground operations, to mean Something Like iraq and afghanistan. Not foreseen in our campaign not asking for 34. He also gave some illustrations. Just to go back. I am sorry to interrupt. That is the definition that is the best we can get on enduring, not afghanistan and iraq . It make sense to me not to try to enumerate everything we may find it necessary to do in the course of this campaign. Just to go back. I am sorry to interrupt. That is the definition that is the best we can get on enduring, not afghanistan and iraq . It make sense to me not to try to enumerate everything we may find it necessary to do in the course of this campaign. Instead, the text sets an outer limit. It does not try to enumerate everything. The president s language did illustrate some things and secretary kerry cited them, but it does not try to say everything we might have to do. That is a good sensible thing for a military campaign. Two more questions. Secretary kerry, in response to senator rubio, you said i believe that several of the middle east counterparts that you have been talking to, you have shared with them details or some details of the negotiations with iran. Am i misunderstanding your response . Secretary of state kerry we shared with them an outline. We havent shared with them actually, we briefed them. We had our team go down and brief them. Are those the same details that we have been briefed on . Secretary of state kerry you have been getting it much more in depth. Thank you. To general dempsey, talking about the peshmerga. In terms of percentage, if you look at the isf overall, the fights undertaken against isil what weight of effort would you say that the peshmerga or others fighting in the region are currently pursuing against isil . General dempsey the early successes were largely through peshmerga. Thats will evolve over time, but they had been carrying the majority of the effort so far. Are they carrying out a third . Three quarters, 90 . General dempsey the early effort to blunt isils momentum were with the peshmerga. Reports in the news and other places state that peshmerga have only been getting 10 of the arms rigid through baghdad. Is that correct . I dont have the percentage. I can take it for the record. There was friction early on with the government of iraq to provide weapons to peshmerga but we have managed our way through that. Right now, you confidence that it has been settled or resolved . General dempsey im confident we have broken through the initial fiction, but it does not mean it will not recur. Thank you mr. Chairman and thank you secretary kerry and secretary carter and general dempsey for being here. I was very pleased when the administration sent over language for the aumf. I supported the aumf that passed out of this committee in the last congress because i think as you all said, it is very important for our men and women who might be putting themselves at risk in the fight against isil to know that they have the support of congress. I think it is very important for the American Public to know, to hear this debate, and know congress is supporting whatever actions that we take. With respect to that, one of the places where i think i would have issue with the language that was sent over by the administration is with respect to the reporting on the ongoing actions. As you all know the language in the aumf that the administration sent over said the President Shall report to congress at least once every six months on specific actions taken pursuant to this operation. In looking at the aumf that passed the committee in december, the reporting requirements are much more robust and much more comprehensive. It requests reporting every 60 days and it also requests a comprehensive strategy report that would be clear to congress and therefore to the American People the specific political and dramatic objectives of the United States in the region. It asks for a clearly defined military objective and the list goes on. While i appreciate there might be concern about the level of detail requested, it still seems to me that there is a benefit from providing additional detail about the mission and more frequent periodic reporting. I think that is important not just for congress, i think there are also some benefits to the operation, because it makes it very clear in writing, at some level, what the plan is. I was always taught, a plan is not a plan unless you have written it down somewhere, unless you have got something that you can refer to. Can i ask you secretary kerry to respond to that and perhaps secretary carter and general dempsey might want to as well . Secretary of state kerry first of all, believe me, the plan is reduced to writing and the president reviews it and there is an enormous amount of analysis that goes into this. You are right that it needs to be specific. But i think there needs to be a a balance between the effort put into reporting and fighting the war and getting the job done. I have asked the state department to do a review of all the reports we have to do and the numbers of people and hours that are put into reports that frankly, dont often get thoroughly read and digested. I think there is a briefing the process, that in my memory here, works pretty well. Six month, when you think of it, is a fair amount of time. It is not so much time in the course of this in terms of the review process that it does not do the job. When you mix in the numbers of classified briefings, hearings that will take place and so forth. We are not trying to resist accountability, i assure you but surely we can find a way to balance so that there is not an excess of paper turning and process that actually gets in the way of getting things done. I think there is a balance personally. I havent talked to my colleagues about it, but i think, i assume they might feel the same way. Certainly, i might agree that there should be a balance. Im just questioning if the balance in the language sent over is the right balance. I dont know secretary carter or general them to want to add to that. Defense secretary carter i think balance is the right word and you are both seeking that and i agree with the principle. General dempsey i would add, it is for you to determine how to exercise your oversight authority. But, it was a line somewhat with how we do reporting and there was a logic in that. I want to make sure i understood something that i think you said, secretary carter. And that was that i didnt get this quote down exactly correct, that you said something about believing that the 2001 aumf gives us the ability to protect ourselves if we are attacked . Did i understand that accurately . Defense secretary carter it is more specific than that and the legal interpretation is more specific than that. I was simply saying that the existence of that since 2001 has provided the authority under which we have protected ourselves. It is quite clear we need to protect ourselves. The question i have is do we need need that aumf to protect ourselves if attacked. What im try to figure out is why is whether we should insert specific language in this aumf that acknowledges that the fight we are engaged in now is covered by this aumf and therefore the 2001 is not part of the action that we are doing now. I will explain my understanding and ask secretary kerry to add. The text explicitly states that this supersedes the 2002 aumf. That i understand. The president has also indicated his willingness and desire to revisit the 2001 aumf. The only thing i would say is that it is important that as we do that, i understand the desire to revisit the 2001 aumf, we do need the continuing authority that this new one does not provide to continue to to protect us against others not isil. We need that in order to protect the country. If we replace the 2001, that is fine with me as long as a gives us the authority to protect ourselves. Ive seen press reports that the white house is open to congress inserting legislative language on this point as we did when we passed it out of the committee in december. Secretary kerry, do you know if that is correct . If the administration would accept the kind of language . Secretary of state kerry i dont know specifically if the decision has been made to accept the language, though i do know specifically the president has said it would sort of invite the notion of having language, because he has said if you pass the aumf with respect to isil now, he would rely on his authority for isil on that aumf. Not the 2001. That would seem to leave it open. I do not want to conclusively say they would accept. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Have a question for chairman dempsey but i want to thank you personally for your lifetime of service and i hope you will take my echo of the request earlier to give condolences for the heroes who lost their lives last night. In his recent address to congress, Prime Minister netanyahu stated, quote, when it comes to iran and isil, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy. Would you respond to that from a military perspective . General dempsey well, i wont respond to the Prime Ministers choice of words or how he determines his national interests. In terms of our national interests, we have six things concerning us. One of them happens to be Irans Nuclear program. After two wars and 14 years later, al qaeda still exists. That is not a criticism, it is a reality. I would like for you to help me define what we see from a Military Point what a victory against isil would be. Thank you for asking. We rarely have a chance to talk about the overall scheme here, if you will. Isil is transregional, which is to say they are not just confined to iraq and syria. They are generational, which suggests the duration of this campaign will be prolonged. We are seeking to find a sustainable level of effort. I did not have a chance to respond on the differences from the aumfs from 1984 and 2015. The use of military force in a state on state conflict is very different from a state on a actor. The military brings three things. We own two lines of effort out of nine against isil. The other lines of effort our governance, counter financing, humanitarian relief, so forth. The two things were doing are using direct action, notably with our airstrikes. The other is building partner capacity, which is to say, building up the ability of the peshmerga, the sunni tribal leaders, to reject isil. It will only be permanently defeated if they reject the ideology. Not simply by as cutting off its head. It has got to be rejected from within. It requires a different application of military instruments than if we would be fighting a state on state actor. One more thing. The military does three things. Direct actions, building partners, and enabling others. What we are doing with the french in mali, against al qaeda. That is what we are doing. That is what this aumf allows and the limiting principle. I sense that some of us are looking for a limiting principle. The limiting principle is the way this particular enemy will be defeated. It wont be defeated by u. S. Military power alone. You mentioned you are concerned about what happens afterwards. With regard to sectarian violence at the board. If we are victorious against isil in iraq, it looks like iran is also victorious. Because their efforts there are behind this shia militia. Can you speak to that . In terms of that part of the definition of victory. What can we do from a military standpoint once we declare victory over isil in iraq and syria . There is a lot in that question. Iran is going to be influential in iraq and has been. Im concerned about the way they wield that influence. There are ways they can wield that to promote a better iraq, economically for example. There are ways they could wield that influence to create a state where the sunni and kurds are no longer welcome. It is my concern about the latter that we are watching carefully as this tikrit unfolds. As for declaring victory against isil, that is not for us to declare. As i said, very much we can enable it and support a coalition and hold a coalition together. We can build into the region, we can harden the region against it militarily. But the ideology has to be defeated by those in the region. I am concerned about irans stature in the region. Particularly relating to assad and hezbollah. We have a partner in crime here where you run is also going to be successful and strengthen their position. Let me echo one thing i heard on both sides this morning. I want you to pass this along to your men and women in service. We hope we will end up unified. I absolutely believe we have to be likeminded. This is bigger than any partisan position. This is about the security of our country. This is bigger than the middle east, then our National Security, this is about global security. I would like to follow about asymmetric and symmetric conversation. You are talking about the asymmetric question with regards to iraq and the middle east. Im concerned and would like to have you respond and perhaps secretary carter as well, what impact does that have on our longterm strategy relative to symmetric threats. I know we dont talk about the peoples republic of china and russia in this conversation, but it is all interrelated and i would like to see how this relates in your mind to the longerterm strategy. Thank you, senator. For the first time in my 40 years, we have both state and nonstate threats to our national interests. In my first 25 years, it was all about state threats, notably the soviet union. The last 15 years, it is all about nonstate actors. We live now in an environment where we have threats emanating from both states and nonstate. We are actually adapting quite well. If we dont have budget help on the issue of sequestration, it is going to be difficult to manage both threats. Thank you. Senator markey. Thank you. I want to thank secretary kerry for his strong words about the letter that was sent by our 47 colleagues to the government of iran. I think that was a serious breach of protocol and an exercise in bad judgment especially at this very sensitive time. I thank the secretary for taking that very strong position in this hearing. Secretary carter, what i would like to ask you is how this extends to libya and what this authorization could mean, given the increasing stronghold that isis has in many parts of libya, and what it could portend in terms of u. S. Commitment to their removal of isil from libya. Defense secretary carter thank you. There are those in libya who use the term rebranding themselves as isil. That is not the only place we see that. It is certainly going on in libya. Therefore, this aumf could apply to operations in and around libya against those groups depending upon their behavior and whether they had met the criteria of the aumf. And also, because of the 2001 aumfs extent as well, that could also cover actions we might need to take in libya as it has in the past, if there are successor groups to al qaeda. Will both of those might apply to libya and these are the kinds of her determinations made as these cases arise. All but you do see in this social media fueled movement called isil, people who are wannabees, or want to join, are putting up the flag of isil and we need to recognize that that is a characteristic of the campaign and that is why the aumf has the language it does. If i may move back over to syria. In terms of what all of this means for our longterm american commitment, our goal is to remove assad. The goal of iran and russia to keep assad in office. Iran most prominently. What does this mean in terms of the commitment that we are making to have the moderate syrians depose, takeout, assad . That is their goal. Are we committing to back them in their effort to depose him . Because that is their stated public goal. So, how do we square up this aumf potentially with that longerterm goal which our principal allies inside of syria would have. Senator, this is isil specific. There are those who wish it would include assad, but it doesnt. We are supporting the moderate opposition, directly, in the efforts focused on assad. The congress, and were grateful for it, have approved for the program, 500 million, and that program is about to be up and running. In addition to that, there are other activities focused on the issue of assad. But specific to the aumf it is isil and it does not authorize activities against assad. But in strengthening the moderate syrians, whose goal is to remove assad, are we not at a minimum, indirectly helping that goal to be achieved by potentially eliminating good thread of isil to that goal. Are we contemplating as a result a longer stay in syria to accomplish that goal . When you say a stay in syria, we are not in syria. I mean our military support for taking out isil and strengthening the moderate syrians. We are committed to strengthening the moderate syrians, we are committed to other activities that are specifically focused on the assad regime, but this authorization and the efforts to deal with isil are focused on degrading and destroying isil. That particular military activity, should that goal be accomplished, would then cease and desist. But the effort to support the moderate opposition will continue. Obviously, if isis is eliminated and the moderate opposition has gained capacity as a consequence of that particular fight, theyre going to be strengthened in their other activities, and we have made that argument openly and publicly. How long, in your opinion general, do you think is will take for assad to be removed . Given his current state . General dempsey two very different questions. The diplomatic line of effort is the primary line of effort right now. I have not been asked to apply the military line of effort to remove assad. I would defer to others to how long it will take. The position of the United States is clear. He has given up the legitimacy of governing people he is oppressing. Thank you. Just to respond to senator markey and secretary kerry previous comment, i would like to ask anonymous consent to enter into the record a copy of congress. Gov where senator kerry and senator obama cosponsored a bill to ensure that congress had a vote on the agreement that we reached with iraq. I understand that sometimes in this world where you stand is where you sit, but i would like to balance out some of the discussion today and understand that positions change depending on what side of the table you are sitting on. If i may, mr. Chairman, i was referring to the timing of the delivery of the letter, given the negotiations in which secretary kerry is now engaging in. I continue to believe it was an inappropriate document for the time in which it was delivered. It was not timely. Thank you. Thank you all for your service to the country. We appreciate your patience. I had a College Professor who once said the mind can only absorb what the seat can endure. We hope we will not keep much longer. I have one question for secretary kerry. Im not asking the question, i would like to thank you for your service. You do a great job for the American People and you have a job where the commander in chief any question i ask you, would not be fair if it had the political connotation to it. Secretary kerry, we have served together for a long time and you know this is really a political issue in part and has political overtones. I believe the senators remarks about the need to come together as congress is important. Here is what i want to ask you secretary kerry. The first president to ever mention radical islam was Thomas Jefferson. General dempsey has talked about this as an enduring conflict. He talked about it evolving regionally and being transregional. We know isil is in the maghrib. We have had attacks in paris and brussels. It is a growing threat. Here is my question. If we had problems dating all the way back to Thomas Jefferson and it is a growing regional threat, having a time limit does not make much sense to me. We have the united commitment to fight isil and defeat isil but as general dempsey has said, that is not the easiest definition to write into words. It is a combination of a number of things. On the term of enduring, i think it means not special forces but troops deployed. I understand that that would be something the president would like to come back to congress and get authorization for. Wouldnt we be better off sending a clear signal that there is no end to this conflict we win the victory . Thank you. I appreciate it. You dont have to commit yourself on behalf of the administration. Let me think you personally because im delighted he stayed on the committee. You gave up a couple of seats of seniority. I want to express my appreciation. I know you will be a strong voice for some of the things that always get paid attention to, particularly in africa. I dont think theres any doubt. I believe that the three years if they are accompanied by the vote that is necessary here and by the accompanying commitments by each senator who goes to speak and define why we are doing this and what were doing i think is would be a healthy debate. Im confident coming out of that would be an absolute understanding of why everyone in the region and world that we are deeply committed to this and committed for more than the three years. The three years will be respected as secretary carter says as a reflection of the process and not as a management of the fundamental commitment to achieve our goals. Every country in the region has committed to defeat isil. Every country. That is partly what has prompted some of the questions because of irans commitment to do that. I really think the three years is more of a statement of respect by president obama, for him to say to the next president , to the Congress Review this, take a look at this, see how it is going. Tweak it if necessary. I think he has no doubt about the readiness and willingness of congress to continue that forward but perhaps with some stateoftheart refinements. I do not think it is a problem. I think we can deal with that. In order to achieve the vote they strains of iraq and afghanistan the experience of iraq and afghanistan created a sufficient cloud over the potential of this note that i think i think that is the commitment we need. That gets us the stronger but to do that. I appreciate your response. I think the enduring presence gives you a chance to revisit and expand. Thank you for your time and service. I want to start by taking general dempsey and secretary carter and carry for your service and engagement with us today. We recently heard credit news of 11 Service Numbers missing and lost. I think it is worth a moment of reflection on the enormous sacrifice that they have made and that there families are facing. I think all of us were best authorize i think his will involve a great deal of the question i want to raise is who bears the cost. We did put on the table and in our discussion the financial cost. General dempsey was right to raise the concerns about the budget. The need to pay for this war is essential concern. President eisenhower said america could choke itself to death. We have used a combination of either spending cuts or increased revenue to pay for every conflict before the 2003 iraq war and the to post 9 11 engagements. I think we cannot write it is not only fiscally responsible but morally responsible. I am aware that this is not within the purview of his committee but i think it is the responsibility of all of congress. Im intending to renew this conversation. In the last congress, i introduced an amendment that was debated and considered. I wondered if any of you care to comment on behalf of the administration on an amendment that would call for a temporary war tax . Secretary carter . Defense secretary carter you are raising a very important question. My own view is that question is not best associated with the authorization for the use of military force, although it is a very important question. With respect to the expenditures, we are in a situation, and chairman dempsey refer to this, and i believe the state department is also in terms of its own budget, one in which we have had your after year of turmoil, it is destructive and wasteful and causes all of us, and i think this is probably true in the state department budget, to have a very difficult time managing appropriately and efficiently. That is a very important problem. I appreciate your attention to it and agree with what you said. Office top of the head here, i think that this is best dealt with and needs to be dealt with, the best dealt with another way than by incorporating the funding situation in the aumf. Thank you. The point im trying to raise is that at the same time that the chairman of the joint chief raises appropriate, and during the concerns, i feel uncomfortable that we continue to use contingency funding for more and more reach and functions. I would like to see us take on the responsibility of paying for this and not just asking for sacrifice from those in uniform. There has been back and forth about what associated forces mean, we have been engaged in issues relating to africa and whether in libya or nigeria, there have been organizations pledging their allegiance to isil. Just this past saturday, boko harams leader pledged allegiance. The conflict with boko haram in nigeria is another example of a situation where american boots on the ground is not what is called for and american support is the best strategy going forward. In your view, if that began to take off and conflicts begin to engage some of our Coalition Partners, with would this aumf qualify us to go after them . What actions would they have to take in order to be covered by this aumf and its current language . Thank you for the question. An important one. As of now, this moment, by pledging what they have pledged or flying the flag or saying they are affiliated, there is no decision made or contemplated that they would be covered under this at this moment. That is not adequate. But if, as secretary carter said, they start to attack the united hates or join with isil in a specific strategy to attack Coalition Partners, that would raise a legitimate question and this authorization could in fact, under those circumstances, cover them. It would have to be thered be a lot of internal scrubbing about what those activities were and what the implications were. It would not be automatic but open to judgment. Let me ask one more question, on the topic of negotiations with iran. I will make a statement and if you care to comment, that would be great. It is my hope that if a longterm agreement is reached the inspection obligation would be enduring as not end at the end of that term. Knowing that there would be a continuing inspection obligation would give some comfort to those of us who do not trust iran and are not confident that at into the window they would not immediately return to their Illicit Nuclear weapon activities. A very quick comment. It addresses a lot of the comments we have been hearing from the hill. I keep hearing people say, we dont trust iran. Nothing in this agreement contemplated, if it gets reached, is based on trust. Nothing. In fact, it is based on distrust, and to therefore would have to be accompanied by an adequate level of verification, whatever that might be. Im not going to discuss what might be contempalted. Im saying that whatever might be reached is not on the basis of some words and documents. It has to be verified and has to be accountable. Thank you mr. Secretary. Thank you, mr. Chairman. General dancing, question is for you. I appreciate what you are doing here. I think all of us agreed that we need a strong vote on this a umf and i appreciate your Efforts Center secretary kerry to put this together and this is a very difficult needle to bread because of the wide various views in congress. I appreciate your efforts to do that and i hope that they of the day that we do have this strong vote in support of this. I urge you to continue those efforts. General dempsey, this question is for you. If this passes, how will things be different after this passes than they are now . What is going to change . I do not think there will be any difference in our activities. I think there will not be a potentially a difference among our Coalition Partners in the way they view our commitment to the fight. That in terms of the way that we applied military force, and either directly their partners ornately others, they may change. Thank you, very much thank you very much. What im saying now is a statement for the record and it is not a question. And i want to respond to some of the comments that were made here today. Im one of the 47 senators that signed the letter that there is all this talk about in recent days. This indignation and beating over this letter is absolute nonsense. Each of us that signed it is an elected member of the United States senate and is the first branch of this government. To say that we should not be communicating is nonsense. Members of congress, every single day, communicate with members of other countries with president s and heads of other countries, with secretary the states and Foreign Ministers of other countries. It is done regularly. Every Time Congress has recessed [no audio] secretary kerry secretary kerry i were on opposite sides when we were debating. That was a treaty between two nations regarding their nuclear capabilities. This is the exact same thing. It is an attempt to reach an agreement over Nuclear Weapons capability. It is a treaty and should be treated as such. I hope an agreement is reached. I really hope we get a good agreement. If we do not get agreement there should be no agreement. I will say in regards to what secretary kerry said about other countries in the region and their view of what is happening here, he conceded that they were nervous. I would go further than that. I meet with the same people. I would classify their feeling as queasy. Very queasy. Anybody who down set should get the transcript of what Prime Minister netanyahu said about it last week. Anybody who doubts that. The characterization he made of how he feels his country feels is very representative of how other countries in the region feel. Mr. Chairman, that is a statement for the record. I yield back my time. The how his country feels is very representative of how other countries in the region feel. Mr. Chairman, that is a statement for the record and i yield my time. Thank you to the panel for coming today. Madison wrote that history demonstrates what the constitution supposes. That the executive branch is most prone to war and therefore the constitution was studied care vested that power in the legislature. Madison also went on to further right that the separation of powers would be protected by pitting the ambitions of one branch against the ambitions of another. There will be points of dispute. These points of dispute are imported and none will monolithically be able to declare a victory. I cannot particularly be happy about being lectured by the administration about the constitution. This is an administration that i believe has trampled the constitution in many terms. This is an administration that seeks to legislature when it is not in their purview, whether it be legislation, whether it be health care, or whether it now be a war that has been going on for eight months without congressional authorization. This administration is in direct the performance the fines of what senator obama ran on and was elected on. He said that no country could go to war without the authority of Congress Unless under imminent attack. This is a great debate. I signed the letter to iran. The message that i was sending was to you. The message was to present obama that we want you to obey the law and we want you to understand the separation of powers. If this agreement in any way modifies legislative sanctions it will have to be passed. By congress. That is why that i supported the legislation that says exactly this. However, ive told senator corker privately that i think that is the law anyway. This will have to be passed. You cannot undo legislation. Why do i sign this letter question mark i sign this letter because i signed into an administration that doesnt listen. To an administration that every time tries to go around congress because you think you that you cannot get your way. The president says, oh, the Congress Wont do what i want so i have a 10 and the phone and im going to do what i want. The letter was to you. The letter was to iran, but it should of been cced to the white house because the white house needs to understand that any agreement that removes or changes legislation will have to be passed by us. People can have different interpretations of things. When i will go through a couple of things that bother me about the aumf. The a umf in 2001 says that nations organizations that planned, authorized, committed or aided in the attacks on 9 11 are the target. That is what the authorization is about. I do not read both boko haram into that. To read both boko haram and so that, that is such a stretch that it is meaningless. Senator markey talked about vagueness. It is pretty specific in 2001 when we were supposed to do. I was on favor of that state we had to do what we had to do in afghanistan with those who attacked us. If we have to go to other places, we should have other authorizations. Im not saying that i wont vote for authorizations, we just need to have them. We have a new authorization that says we do not authorize into a ring and offensive operation. The problem is that it is so vague that i trust the military when the military says that this is not what we are conflict desk contemplating. I trust you. There may be a president who i may not trust. I have a certain degree of a lack of trust in this president who says it is not contemplated. The next president can say that is. Is it 100,000 . That would be my question is secretary carter. Were saying that it is not 6000 thousand we are not saying it is 60,000. Is it 100,000 . There should be a number that reflects the basic approach that this draft or proposed a umf takes. This is to not attempt to you numerate or number but to set a skilled and limit could it mean 100,000 . Referring to, and the president specifically refer to the camp and Desk Campaign output. Again asked of the whole logic of the campaign which is to enable those in the region who can make a victory stick. I can understand not wanting to put a number on it. When authorization was passed in december, it did not put a number on it. It defined a Mission Force more precisely. The problem is that without a geographic limit, we now have boko haram. People are saying it is disdainful to say that we want to do pass something, but it doesnt really matter because well use 2001. This is absurd and it means that congress is inconsequential and so are the people in the country. We will basically do what we want if boko haram can be included on the 2000 one. If boko haram is a threat to the country, bring it to me and we will vote. The thing is that i understand how things change over time and how people transmute words to mean things that they really were not intended to mean. If 2001 can be applied to boko haram, i am very concerned about voting for this as it is worded because, if we are going to go to war with libya, i want to vote for war in libya. If we are going to board vote for war in nigeria, lets vote for war in nigeria. You may be able to interpret that under the imminent attack clause of the constitution. But i am concerned and that is why we get to numbers. Under this resolution, i believe you can have unlimited numbers of troops in iraq. I understand that you say it is not contemplated. I also believe that you can have unlimited numbers of troops in libya and in nigeria. Now there are 30 nations that have pledged allegiance to isis. Numbers are important and people worry about the dangers of being too confining. We are not anywhere close to that because even when we thought we were confining and 2001, people have interpret that to mean everything. Senator carter, do you understand that if it were to pass as it is now that there are those of us who would worry that this would be authorizing unlimited troops in 30 different nations of the administration saw fit to send it . Center, i think s enator i think that any aumf tries to strike a balance between being an anticipating a wide enough range of contingencies that we can react in a way that we need to protect ourselves and that we need to anticipate the nature of this enemy while being restrictive enough to suggest to, not just the law, but to you and are forced, the force for which im responsible and general dempsey is responsible what we are contemplating here. We are try to strike that balance. It is always hard to strike a balance and language. As i said before i was a lawyer. In common sense terms, that is the balance that we are trying to strike and i respect that different people might use differently which the that effect and ive learned enough in studying for this hearing about authorities for the use of military force and that there are several avenues to do that. I think what is being done here is a recognition of a new chapter, namely the ice all threat which opened last summer. The recognition that theres a new chapter in our effort to protect ourselves, and out of respect for that, a request for a specific authorization. I think i understand that. I do not think that the lawyers have said that there is a legal necessity for it. It does not come from a legal necessity. It comes from the recognition of a practical fact which is something that happened last summer which created a new danger and the defeat of which we need to participate. We are not doing it by ourselves. We are enabling others to do it. That is the principle insurance to turn it away from another iraq or afghanistan. Speaking as secretary of defense and not a lawyer, it seems to be the logic that brought us here and i understand it. Thank you. I do not question your sincerity when you say it is an contemplated. I truly believe that it is an contemplated. I have to deal with words 15 years and now i have to explain my kids and their friends and their kids kids that something i voted for him to thousand 15 still has is that war in 2030 in 30 different countries. Ok . It is an ongoing threat and we need to keep the separation of powers and the reason that we have to keep it precise is that i cannot vote for something that will enable war in libya nigeria, yemen, and all these places of 100,000 troops. There has to be some limitation. It is the politician and the next politician after you. But thank you very much. Thank you. I have one followup question for chairman dempsey and secretary senator carter. I feel like if you wanted to miss my last question, i would not can sit or renewed. If you want to stay, that would be fine. One minute for one thing. I just wanted you to know that today, the Treasury Department has authorized and initiated additional sanctions on eight ukrainian separatists and russian proseparatist organizations. The of its leaders, the crimea bank, and additionally folks and supporters. In addition to that, today, we are providing immediately some 75 million of additional nonlethal assistance immediately to ukraine in order to help them in nonlethal assistance. As you know, other things are currently under consideration. But i just wanted you to be aware that, mr. Chairman. It is very timely for that. We had a ukrainerussia hearing yesterday and i know theres still a push to provide the legal support. I noticed there were a lot of questions and some statements made today, but the fact is that all of us deeply appreciate the tremendous amount of effort that you put forth in your job and we thank you for taking the time to be with us today with many other demands that you have. Thank you. If i could, gentlemen, chairman dempsey, if i could just follow up a little bit on the aumf and the issue of being able to protect those who we train and equip against assaults and the fact that is your belief that the aumf does not protect that and i believe that is the assumption of secretary carter. Is that correct . Yes. Im told separately just to get your question, is the force that we train and equip come under attack from a side, would we have the Legal Authority to help them defend themselves . My understanding of that question is that we do not foresee that happening anytime soon. A legal determination, im told by the lawyers, has not been made. Whether we have the authority to do that are not, again, im not aware. Someone said to senator graham last week. First of all, we thank you both for being here and i know that coming before Senate Panels is not on your First Priority list in your current day jobs, but we appreciate the time here. This is really to tease it out a little bit. It is a pretty big issue. When you think about the fact that we have authorized the training and equipping and that the administration apparently did talk some with yall. If i understand correctly for a clear legal determination, that would mean an additional authorization would need to be approved by congress for yall to be able to protect and train and equip folks against assad. That seems problematic good you can see the consternation that takes place over the one that is now offered. To come back later with another one does not seem to me to be a vertically appropriate way about going about things. Chairman dempsey, what should be our thinking in that regard and what is yours . I chuckled when you set how much we enjoy coming over here but the truth is, over the course of my four years as chairman, ive come to a deep appreciation of the fact that we do have an article one responsibility to have these kinds of conversations with you about our National Security interests and the strategy delivers. I actually want to thank you for running a really cordial hearing today on the topics. As far as what we are going to do about protecting the new Syrian Forces as they are fielded, that question, i mention the term that we are an active discussion. From the very beginning though we knew that we would come to the point where we had to make a decision about whether or not to protect them and it was always my advice that we had to come to some conclusion to assure them that they would be protected. Now the scope and scale that protection is the part of this that is being actively debated. But the program wont succeed unless they believe themselves to be and have a reasonable chance of survival. Let me just follow up. Again, i appreciate the fact that you are not just looking at these issues and your role. But other issues in the pacific and all around the world and you have got to balance the resources that we have available to us. But back to that issue. Can you understand why many of us here, knowing that getting turkey involved in some way on the grounds, probably matters to our success if we are going to continue on the policy path that we are on and the strategy. It is important. Knowing that the president did not see the authority to go against him, again, not necessarily to them on directly, but to be able to protect, to train and equip personnel that will be reentering. And to be able to do with some humanitarian issues, and lets face it, the northwest triangle. That would give many of us, who suddenly want to support this, some concern that there really isnt a commitment level there to create, if you will ineffective ground effort. I just wonder if you can respond to that a little bit. I cannot ease your concerns but i can tell you that when i provide my military advice, it is key to the success of the new Syrian Forces that they will have a degree of protection. That, as secretary carter has said, is under active discussion. I assume then, seeing that is skewed to success, those that are actually carrying out these activities would not be offended if Congress Give that authorization today. I leave that to you, our elected officials. I wonder if secretary carter wants to respond to that. Again, the practical answer to her youre very practical question to your very practical question is that there can there could be circumstances in which the forces we train and equip come under attack from a sots assads forces. And it will be important to know what manner they will be supported. That is something under active discussion. I dont agree that the legal aspect of that has been determined. I cannot tell you. You have to ask the white House Counsel or the dod council whether anything was additional additionally required. I said we cant answer that question for you, but i do think it is a very meaningful practical question. And i know that you all are in active discussion, and have your own concerns, and those are not necessarily always addressed quickly, if you will, by those that make decisions in other places. I understand that. I will say that from my perspective, it does show a degree of a lack of commitment from the white house. That they would not go ahead on the front, knowing theres no way you can continue to recruit the folks that are involved in this train and equip program if they know they are going to come into the country and immediately be barreled bombed. It would be very difficult to recruit additional folks, as you mentioned. And it does cause me to be concerned about the administrations overall commitment. If that is not think that within this authorization, we have authorized the train and equip program several months ago. If i could, to you secretary carter, now, the reason the question i think was asked about the persian gulf war and the 600, almost 700,000 troops that were involved, to me the enduring combat language that was in theaumf the aumf would have allowed for that. It was a seventh seven month operation. And, so, you are saying that a seventh month operation from your standpoint seven month operation from her standpoint would not, if you will qualified for the president s language. That would be too long. The reference you are using is to a campaign intended to destroy the military forces of another state. That is a fundamentally different kind of conflict from this one. The ability to compare them alludes me. I understand you are making a difference are, and i understand the difference when going against the country and an entity like isis. I guess what troubles me just a hair, and again, we all respect deeply the way uf come in you have come in and taken charge, but talking about a seven month operation being too long, that goes beyond, if you will, and enduring offense. I was should clarify that for the record. If it takes two or three years i guess you would assume that not to be enduring. I repeat what i said earlier about the timescale. We do not know how long it will take to defeat isil. I explained earlier that i would not tell you it would be three years. That was the only duration included in this authorization and it does not derive from any expectation on how long the campaign will last. It derives from the political calendar of our country. So that is the timescale named and specified in the proposed aumf. And that is the only. Of and that is the only period of time named. I dont know if senator menendez has any questions. I dont have any questions, i just have a comment. I want to share our thoughts and prayers for the servicemembers who are lost. This underlines that there is risk once you done the uniform don the uniform. Our thoughts and prayers are with their families. It also reminds me of someone who did not own for the process of sequester. You cannot ask you to do everything we ask you to do if we dont find relief from sequester. We seem to somehow ignore that. But i dont think both of you have that luxury. We have to do that. Finally, i do hope that we can get to a point to find the right balance. And that is not easy in this proposition. To give you an aumf to defeat isil, but by the same token, doesnt provide an open ended check. But i think the real concern here is, for some of us who lived under shock and off a we, and saw a lot of lives and National Treasure spent, that even wellintentioned efforts can move in a totally different direction. And this is the most critical vote that any member of congress will take, which is basically a vote on war and peace, and life and death. So, for those of us who have been pursuing this, to try and find the right spot, the one thing i want to do takeaway is that i dont think there is a democrat or republican who believes we shouldnt defeat isil. As we struggle to get to the right wording, i hope we can go back to the men and women who serve this country with great sacrifice. In that spirit, we are united. It is our only cause you to find out what is the best way to ensure that, and in the end, not in short and endless war. Which is a concern of many. Thank you for saying that. It means a lot. Thank you both. I was just handed a note, as i think you all were a minute to go. I just want to end my last statement before thanking you that it is my understanding that the dod senior lawyers are sitting behind you. It is my understanding as we leave here that the authorization that has been put before us, and the 2001 authorization, neither one gives clearcut authority for you all to be able to defend, the train and equip program, against. I dont think anybody is great disagreement that, is that correct . That is my understanding. I would be happy to have our legal team speak to you about that. Since i dont see them waving their hands back there, i assume they are speaking now. I would just like to close also by telling you how much we respect you both. How much we do appreciate your service to our country. How much we appreciate you taking the time to come up to. I think this has been very helpful to all of us. We wish you well. And the record will be open until it the close of business friday. I hope if questions come, you will answer them as promptly as possible. Thank you for yo up next, a conversation on the use of war powers. Then a pentagon briefing on u. S. U. K. Military relations. The promotion of a drug starts seven to ten years before a drug comes on the market. And while its illegal for a company to market a drug before its been approved its not illegal to market a disease. So Drug Companies have sometimes invented diseases or exaggerated the importance of certain conditions or exaggerated the importance of a particular mechanism of a drug, for example. And then blanketted medical journals and medical meetings and other venues with these messages that are meant to prepare the minds of clinicians to accept a particular drug. And also to prepare the minds of consumers to accept a particular condition. Washington journal continues. Host we are back with more debate on the president asking congress to give him authorization to fight isis, the terrorist group. Here with two different perspectives, Danielle Pletka, from the American Enterprise institute, along with Brian Katulis, senior fellow at centers for American Progress. Danielle, your overall thoughts on what the president sent up to congress recently, this draft of an aumf, authorization for military force. Guest on the one hand, he was a good thing that the president went forward and sent up a draft. There was the eight on whether it was a good thing to do that or not. There was a debate on whether it was a good thing to do or not. In many ways, it was a loselose , because there are some things republicans hate in it, and some things the democrats hate. Even the limited goals that the president himself has put in there, it limits things for three years, which is a little bit unrealistic, although perhaps excusable. It has other limitations on the president about the kind of force he can use on the ground and yet it has no limitations on the limitations of using that force. With the kind of environment in washington, that is a pretty bad recipe for progress. Host what do you like . Guest i like the fact that the president is committed to this fight. What i dont like is that there is no particular strategy. There appears no there appeared to be no challenges, no nonmilitary challenges. I do not want to pretend to be an expert like Benjamin Wittes but as a constitutional matter, i hate that the president sends up an aumf that ties his hands. I think it sets a bad precedent for future president s. Guest i think certainly what daniel has said, there are pluses and minuses to it, but the politics are more complicated than what danielle just said. The republicans are quite divided on key issues. If you look at the votes last year, the votes on funding of the syrian opposition, both caucuses are actually split. I think that demonstrates that we are in a somewhat different moment. I am glad he did it. I want the bombing of syria started seven months after we in reengaged in iraq. It looks Like Congress is about to perhaps do something here, but we have really been in this limbo territory where essentially u. S. Personnel, men and women are at risk. They are part of a campaign against a deadly terrorist group. If something were to happen in this political and legal limbo it will cause all sorts of controversy. I hope we can get a consensus but i worry we might not. Host Danielle Pletka, we just learned from Benjamin Wittes, that 2001 may cover with the president is doing. Guest theres an argument in this town that isis is not covered by the authorization. Is it hair splitting . Are all islamist extremists al qaeda . The answer is no. They are two different organizations even though they have similar ideas. I think it is hairsplitting to suggest that one is imperative and the other is not, but i agree with brian. It is important to set something out that makes clear that the president is authorized that congress is behind him in what we are doing, and perhaps get congress to do its job and get the president to better define what strategy is, what his ends are, who he is fighting, and more importantly, the president likes to say there is no military solution. I could not agree more with that. The problem is, what is his post military action . I dont think any of us have a clue what they are thinking. What we have really seen from them, other than this brief sort of summit on countering violent extremism, we have really seen military options. Guest i think we have mainly a clearer idea on the pathway in iraq. In part because there is more to work with, quite frankly. We have spent so much time and so much money wasted but there are training efforts for years. There are groups to work with. We have seen this week the Iraqi Security forces along with other groups, taking back the city of tikrit from the Islamic State. There is a pathway there, and the president has the clear of pathway since last summer, trying to use additional u. S. Support security use additional u. S. Support security support, to defeat isis. I think that is wise. Where the strategy is quite unclear, and i think people in this administration would admit it is on the syrian side of things. We are in a dangerous limbo, and since the Islamic State essentially tore down the border between iraq and syria, it is hard to have a copperheads of strategy in that part of the world, and that does not raise the question of migrating or having affiliates in egypt, in libya, in parts of africa as well. Host in a little over 30 minutes, secretary of state john kerry and general dempsey will go before the Foreign Relations committee and answer questions about what we are talking about here. If you were sitting at the dais what would you say, as a senator . Guest the umf the aumf gets very little guidance. Brian is right, if you have isis ,an iraq isis strategy, that is ok. We may have some disagreement about the reliance that the administration is putting on iran to help the iraqis fight but at the same time, it is i have a strategy inside the beltway, but outside the beltway dont really have one. They are not discernible, and isis is crossing the border and has erased that border. I would press hard on that and on the followon. Do we need more troops . Do we need more assistance for folks on the ground. Those are all legit questions. Host is there support for putting more troops on the ground in the way that we understand it, not the special advisors, etc. . Guest they are already there. I think the three questions i would focus on what would be the end state . Under president obama we have defined we have never defined with clarity what is the end state that we are driving for. I think that is telling. The second thing, what are others in the region doing . I think there is wisdom in the approach in iraq and al qaeda having others pull their weight. And what is demanded of us, defining that with greater clarity. The ensigns of billing the essence of building a coalition. This force, the Islamic State, really will not be defeated i think it needs to be defeated. It will not be defeated solely by us, but it needs to be defeated by other allies like jordan and places like that. What are we trying to achieve here . Host our cameras will be here to hear what lawmakers ask of the Obama Administration to fight isis. Nine 30 eastern time. We will in end the washington journal early. Lets go to richard, an independent. Caller good morning, greta, and thank you, cspan, for taking my call. We have a serious problem when the president has a problem defining the enemy and defining what strategy we need to win or to achieve whatever over there in the mideast. I was reading some kind of scary statistics not too long ago that said that basically up until 2009 we had lost in afghanistan and iraq about 3500, 3500 wounded and dead up to 2009. Since 2009, obama, to almost present, 17,000 wounded and dead. This is a drawdown. And president obamas rules of engagement are obviously not working. Host i am going to have Brian Katulis jump in on that. Guest i am not certain about those statistics. I have not seen them. But to your basic question, are they not working the u. S. Has tried many Different Things over the last 15 years in iraq, afghanistan. We tried light footprints early on in the Bush Administration. We tried heavy counterinsurgency, which was extremely costly, and i believe in that period in iraq and afghanistan from 2007 until 2011, it was the deadliest because we were demanding our young men and women to be social workers one moment, warriors and the others, and they were living in the neighborhoods. That bridged both the obama and the Bush Administration. The real thing that is missing is not solely the military rules of engagement. There is a role for the u. S. Military to play. It is the thing that we talk about a lot, the political, diplomatic, and how we get the countries in the region to defeat this. A very good move, but where is the followup . Where is saudi arabia . Where are our allies that are part of the isil coalition that defeat these groups politically. If there is one Lesson Learned from bush from the Bush Administration and then the Obama Administration, you do need some military role. But the strategy has always been wholly and complete. We are missing the wider landscape, which is not look which does not look very positive. Host next, a democratic caller. Caller i recently saw an interview with King Abdullah of jordan by for reed zakaria. By faried zakaria. I know nothing about arabic, but basically they are outlaws. They are outlaws of islam. He feels it should be a regional fight. I think that what we should do is be in a support role. We can provide weapons to the kurds, for example, a peaceful and civilized people. The countries in the area like saudi arabia, for example, have the fourthlargest military in the world. These people have the resources to do the fighting themselves. I really do not think this idea of going in there and storm trooping our way through the region and winning the fight for the people in the region makes no sense at all. The gentleman there has touched on this. I want to know how they feel about that. The people in the region themselves if king abdulla and others feel it is there fight why dont we let them do it back up guest why dont we let them do it . Guest i think she asks a really good question. This is a fight within sunni islam. The problem is, when you let things fester, as i think the administration has done, it becomes a threat to the United States. That is when the United States started to engage. We had a real handsoff policy for quite a long time while isis grew and grew and spread to iraq, throughout syria, to the cities taking control of resources. They were extremely powerful. What brought us in was the beheading of james foley and several others. That is the problem. Were there people on the ground who were going to fight . Yes. Were they optimal people . Were they Perfect People . No. But the syrian army and others, particularly at the outset, were people that i think we could work with, to back up. I think the arab states could do more. The problem is, we left it to the point where if we had not intervened, it was too greater challenge. Host Danielle Pletka, iran is involved now. Is that ok . Guest there is a lot of debate on that in washington. On one side, people support you in the people that they believe need to be killed. Brian and i have talked about this often, and i am sure he has something valuable to add. The first is that there is this perception, this growing problem in the middle east. It is personified by iran versus turkey, saudi arabia whatever it is allowing iran to come in and do this does not help bridge that divide. It also gives iran an enormous amount of power, power that the Iraqi Government expresses profound concern about. The battle of tikrit that you mentioned would not have been won if they did not have the support on the ground. That is not good for us. Guest i dont disagree with much of that, but we have to go back to 2002 2003, when iran and iraq were contained by a strategy of the u. S. At that point. One of the strategic consequences of the iraq war in 2003 unfortunately was that we eliminated i am glad Saddam Hussein was gone, but we opened the door for iran to expand its regional influence. More or less, there is a lot we could have done from 2003 to the present. More or less, you are watching gravity take place. It is a shiite majority country, not that there is there are generally tensions between iran and iraq. There is a consequence to the strategic shock that there was in the iraq war. We did not get democracy in the region, we got an expansion of the iranian influence, and the expansion of terrorist groups as well. We are where we are now. Host brian, if you could talk about the center for American Progress their new report. We are talking about religious freedom and sort of the different views of islam and the different tribes. How does the United States support sort of this coming together of all these different factions . Guest very carefully. The report we are releasing tomorrow highlights the plight of christians in the middle east. The middle east is the cradle of christianity and most of the great religions of the world. They are about anywhere from 7. 5 there are about anywhere from 7. 5 to 20 million christians in the region. In part, it opened the door to his treason is him it opens the door to extremism and lawlessness. What we are recommending is, how do you beat her mac how do you be pragmatic about it. The middle east i think will not be a region we are living in if pluralism and tolerance and acceptance is not sort of the rule of the day. Unfortunately in many countries in the middle east like iraq and syria, people are being murdered simply because of what they believe in. We do not talk about that as much as i think we should. We have to be careful about it because extremists would say look, they are crusaders. They want to come back and fight in fight in support of those who support tourism and tolerance and basic freedom. And that is one thing, quite frankly, both the last two administrations have not featured as highly in their actual policies of engagement. Host eric is in california. An independent color. Good morning to you. Caller good morning. I think the president has a plan. He is going to come down developing a forces on land that are going to do the occupations. I think it is good we are letting them know this is not a battle on islam. Because when i think it comes it is going to be bad. Host Danielle Pletka . Guest i think i was the same as the color. I would love the think there is some element of struggle or we are going to be defeating our enemies on the ground. I think the real thing were seeing on the ground is a kind of crawling incrementalism that is not that is not contending with the challenge that we face them in an effective way. Guest i think a lot of our military effort has not only been supporting to kurdish forces, but much of it has been air campaign. I think most secret he analysts believe that a group like isis, you cannot defeat them solely from the air. We need have partners on the ground. I tend to think, and what one of the callers said earlier on, it is not important point because at this point, six, seven months, there is a real debate about whether we have killed more militants than they have replaced with people who are coming from around the region and around the world. There is also a debate that if you had a much more visible u. S. Presence there, would it become like a rock 2004, 2007 . Because it really became a Training Ground for terrorists that are not exist before. Host al in portland, or gone. On our line for democrats. Good morning. Caller yeah, my grandfather with was was with the cia in the 1950s. I think we fail to see the big picture because we are never given it. But the rightwing everywhere in the world they want the same thing. Isis might as well be a pawn of the Republican Congress. They are doing exactly what you know the Republican Congress would want. Host in what way al . Caller well, they are attacking. They are building of the regiments. Theyre building up the rightwing in every arab country. Host how so . How so . Caller well, they are doing Everything Possible to offend anybody. They are doing the most offensive things possible. Almost like a hollywood movie. Host ok. Well go to bob in jacksonville florida. Good morning to you, bob. Caller yes, good morning to you folks. Let me make a short statement and ask one question please. Remember that great man eisenhower . His last payment to the mecca people was remember the industrial military complex. Core the sending the checks to . Who are they sending the checks to . They said we finally found the weapons of mass to structure. They are in iran host ok, bob, got your point. Guest i dont think i have been more militants than you have brian, but perhaps a senators have a secret conspiracy together that eisenhower can come back from the grave. Otherwise im not quite sure. I think all of us tried to look at the facts from the ground. We tried recommend good policies. We try to be creative and thoughtful with answers. And we try to do the things that government cant do very often. And that is what you will see in the hearing that you will show after we are done. It is very hard for government which lives in the day today, to ask or think of the medium and longterm to think about things that arent as pressing. Questions of christians in the middle east. Questions of what to do after the military action. I dont think any of us are doing it. I should find someone else to work for. Host reid in union, washington. Caller hi, good morning. I just wanted to make a few comments. I watch cspan every day. I watch the washington journal everyday and other parts of cspan. As usual, a lot of the people far on the left cannot define it. Thank you for that. Iran is really the main thing care, believe it or not, because of the amount of power they have. Maybe a thing like, you know, isis is giving terrorists a bad name because theyre so extreme. So, i dont think theyre acting in the worlds interest at all. And i dont want to digress into the issue, but i dont think the president should be offering any agreement right now. The last point i would like to make is that is lobbied to go through a sort of Old Testament to new. Maybe the egypt leader started to get that process going, but i think that is what needs to happen. The religion itself, without carrying on, is based on mohammed, a warlord who chopped off 600 to 900 heads at a time on a beach. Just like they are doing today. A concubine, ok . A revision in islam that needs to take vice. Host lets have brian jump in on this first. Iran acting on the ground. Can we trust them . Also, and we can delve into this a little bit, this agreement that is happening right now. This negotiation i should say between the United States and iran and five other countries. Guest i think the letter we saw from the republican senators, 45 of them, this week was really unfortunate. Maybe it was a sign that they should be more briefings from the administration with folks. But at this point in delicate negotiations, i think it is important to try to exhaust all of those averages to make sure iran doesnt get a nuclear weapon. We dont need that in the middle east. And really the most effective ways to go about doing this. And i think what is interesting to me about that letter is that i actually think two things. One, it makes many of the signers look a little more erratic and not study because i think congress will have a voice in this. Senators corker and mccain have a piece of legislation that make sure they are proposing an idea that congress has actually bought in. Look, they are already implicated because if we are going to list some of the sanctions, congress is going to have a role. But i think, you know, that episode we need to be concerned. Danny had a good piece in the Washington Post quote Washington Post last month that i think everybody should read. We have to wait to see what an agreement will look like. Guest and let me just note, senator bob corker, he has not signed he did not sign this letter that the 47 republican colleagues sent. Brian called it unfortunate. I want you to jump in because some democrats have gone the other unfortunate and called it sabotage. Some have even said treason. Guest yes, i think people need to get a grip on themselves. People who have called it treason really dont know this is a law of the constitution or frankly, when to shut up. You know, i spent 10 years on the hill. Addressed a lot of iran sanctions, legislation. I think it is important to remember that it has never been the executive branch and the forefront of our iran policy. It has always been congress. They take credit for the sanctions that a, of course, he opposed all the sanctions every step of the way. So, you know, i think we need to give congress its piece of its piece of the action here. I also think that the president has, in many ways, made his bet on this matter because, you are right, they havent briefed to congress. Half and kept them looped in. In the beginning, there were efforts to keep people informed. Those efforts have largely ceased. Not only that, but the state department has a legal opinion about how it can really sanctions on the iranians. That hasnt been shared with the congress yet. That is the can of thing that really irks most members. I think this was nothing of it there nothing other than truth in advertising. Host the Committee Hearing room, where secretary of state john kerry will be here in about 20 minutes, starting to fill up. He is going to be sitting before the Foreign Relations committee. He is the lead negotiator for this iran agreement. And more than likely going to be asked a question or two about this letter and what is going on with these negotiations. What are you goahead and talk as we show our viewers the room. Guest two points. The first 20 draw together the isis with the eye ron diplomacy. With the eye ron iran