So im not going to say much. I would like to say, however, that, while journalists are supposed to be the ones with the nose for news, that i must congratulate the council and senator for superb timing for this discussion and look at American Foreign and defense policy. It is, of course, the 13th anniversary of the terrible events of september 11, 2001. Its a week since the senator returned from a trip to iraq and ukraine. And its just hours since president obama spoke to the nation on the challenges now confronting us. So senator levin, you have the floor, sir. Thank you. Michael, thanks, first of all for all your good work, for your introduction. Its great to be back at the council on foreign relations. Again i think this is three years in a row, perhaps, came up on the elevator, i was reminded that we are also here as michael mentioned on the anniversary of the horrific events of september 11, 2001. So this is a very appropriate time to talk about these issues. I just returned from a trip to ukraine, iraq, and jordan. Thats the type of trip, by the way, that does not make it into the Washington Post series on congressional junkets to choice travel destinations. [laughter] Current Events in these countries are a direct consequence of two of the most dramatic transformations in International Environment that i have seen in my 36 years in the senate. First, the end of the cold war, and second the rise of a virulent strain of islamic extremism. Russias actions in ukraine are a direct challenge to the post cold war hopes for europe. In effect, putin has assert add new sphere of influence, or reasserted an old one, in which he believes he can act with impunity to impose russias will, much as the soviet union did in Eastern Europe during the cold war. In many ways, putins actions in ukraine have been a wakeup call to which the western democracies are beginning to respond in a way in which we did not do in the case of Russian Occupation of territory in georgia and moldova. In light of ukraines proximity to russia, russias overwhelming military advantages in the area and putins apparent willingness to violate the norms of international conduct, theres little that ukraine would be able to do to stop a direct large scale Russian Military action should russia choose to invade openly. Nato will not go to war with russia over ukraine. Nor should we lead the ukrainians to believe that we will. As we tragically did with the hungarians in 1956. So what should the United States and our allies do in ukraine . First, we should continue to find ways to make it clear to the russians that they cannot reject the post cold war order in europe while continuing to participate in the european economy at the same time. Thats why sanctions are important and must stay in place even if a ceasefire is effective until russia conforms its actions to the norms of international behavior. Second, we should do more to help ukrainians defend themselves. Ukrainians emphasized to me on my visit that they are willing to fight for themselves. And as long as they understand that we will not be sending our own men and women to fight for them, i believe we should provide them with the military equipment that they need. That means both lethal and nonlethal equipment, including m wraps and other equipment that would otherwise be shredded or abandoned as we leave afghanistan. We should do this because assisting people who are willing to fight to defend their own country and their own freedom reflects our values. Providing such equipment would enable the ukrainians to raise the price the russians have to pay for their aggression, and hopefully make putin think twice about continuing or furthering aggression. Russias violation of International Law in ukraine has already drawn nato closer together. Reinvigorating the alliance by providing a new challenge and a strong common interest. Putin could, as he boasted, occupy eastern ukraine. But in the long run he would be acting against russias own interest because he cannot prevail against a united europe. My iraq visit focused on isis and the eminent threat it poses to iraq, the region, and international community. Our military leaders and Intelligence Experts have uniformly told us that air strikes alone will not be sufficient to defeat isis. Isiss rapid spread has been possible in large part because it exploited sunni discontent with the maliki government which insisted on ruling iraq on a narrow sectarian basis. If the new Prime Minister shows that iraq will now be governed inclusively, isis will find fewer sunni leaders willing either to aid and abet their terror, or to look the other way. President obama has been cautious about resorting to military force in iraq and elsewhere. In the middle east, the use of military force by western nations without arab support can be counterproductive. Providing fuel for the hateful propaganda used by extremists who attacked a western presence as occupation. For instance, neither isis nor its predecessor, al qaeda and in iraq, existed before the u. S. Invasion in 2003. Instead, al qaeda in iraq was created in response to the american presence in that country and fed off the resulting conflict. So what should the United States do about isis . The president laid out a forceful strategy last night. It deserves bipartisan support. First, just as isis poses a threat to the international security, the response needs to be international. President obama has begun building an International Coalition to respond to isis. U. N. Resolution endorsing the use of force against isis while not necessary would help rally international support. The participation of key arab states in the region will be critical to the effectiveness of any International Coalition. If western countries act in iraq and syria without visible participation and leadership by arab nations, it will play into the propaganda pitch of extreme elements within the Sunni Community that they, isis, is the only force willing to stand up against foreign domination. Active participation by arab states is key because the fight against isis is a struggle for the hearts and minds of sunni muslims as well as a military struggle. The vast majority of muslims oppose the brutality of isis, whose horrific actions may be a turning point in persuading mainstream islam of the need to expunge this poisonous offshoot. If mainstream muslims fail to conflict could be successfully portrayed as one of the west against islam, the poison is likely to reappear in new and different forms as it has in the past. Second, within the context of a Broad International alliance, i believe that congress will support air strikes against isis, taking on the groups leadership and infrastructure in both iraq and syria. The president s hand will be strengthened by congressional support, and he was wise to welcome it last night. But he already has the authority he needs under both domestic and International Law to conduct such a campaign. Under domestic law the president has authority to act under article 2 of the constitution when necessary to defend the United States. The beheading of two american journalists, coupled with isis threats against the United States and its training of americans, provides sufficient basis for such action. Under International Law, the president has authority to act in iraq in accordance with the request of the government of iraq. He has authority to act in syria because the Syrian Government has proven unwilling or unable to address the isis threat from its ungoverned territories. Third, we should train, equip, and assist those iraqis and syrians who are willing to fight isis. Their boots are on the ground already. And their own countrys future is at stake. This effort should start with the kurds, while limited in their military capabilities, the kurdish have proven willing to fight in their own defense and even to take the fight to isis in key strategic areas near kurdistan. Moreover, kurds have provided some defense for nearby areas occupied by religious minorities and have taken in refugees fleeing from isis assaults, providing a haven of religious tolerance that has too often been absent in that part of the world. We should do all that we can to ensure that the peshmerga has the equipment that they need and to help train them in the tactics that will succeed against isis. Training and equipping the peshmerga will not be sufficient to counter the isis threat outside the areas under kurdish control. We should provide training and assistance to the iraq armed forces as the new Iraqi Government hopefully demonstrates that it is prepared to govern in an inclusive manner. If anything, should bring the iraqis together in a common cause, the threat posed by the barbaric tactics of isis should do it. As baghdad addresses the grievances of iraqs sunni communities, western nations should increase the level of military assistance provided. Finally, we and our allies should take additional steps to openly train and assist vetted moderate opposition in syria as the president is requesting and has requested. Even if isis is pushed out of iraq, the organization will survive unless it is also defeated in syria. In syria, as in iraq, isis can be set back by airpower, but cannot be defeated without an opposing force to take the fight to it on the ground. That force needs to be a well vetted, moderate, Syrian Opposition force that is trained, equipped, and supported by the United States and its allies, again including partners among the arab states. In iraq and syria and ukraine, the fight is for their people to win. We can and should provide robust assistance to those who are prepared to fight for themselves against terror and aggression. It is the right thing to do. It reflects our values. And it is in our national interest. U. S. Military force is not always the answer. But it can be and often is an essential part of the answer to terror and aggression. Equally important is an effective political and Economic Strategy which in the case of isis must include both a broad International Coalition with active participation by arab nations, and the establishment of a moderate, inclusive alternative in both iraq and syria. Michael . Thanks very much. Well get started by asking what roles do you see actually being played by saudi arabia, turkey, jordan, arab allies, if theres to be a coalition, and if arab muslim participation is crucial to some ultimate success. Is a public role possible for them . And if so what might that be for those countries . The public role is not only possible, its essential. If we are going to turn the momentum against the extremists and the terrorists and the fanatics and violence users inside of that strand of islam, its got to be led by mainstream islamists. Theres no alternative. I believe it is possible now for two reasons. One is because of isis and who they threaten. That is very clear that they threaten those same countries. Existence of the governments in those countries. The second reason is that what the president is doing and asking for us to openly Fund Training and equipment under , title 10, is asking for 500 million for training and equipping, and asking for specific support and authority to train and equip. He already has the authority, by the way. The reason for asking for that ultimate authority under title 10, which means the Defense Department personnel and not other personnel, doing it covertly, is to show the arab world that we are openly doing something, which we have only done covertly, which i believe they will which will help them to do the same thing. A number of those countries have provided support in the effort for instance, against assad, but , they have not done it openly. But for this effort against isis to work militarily in the short term, but in terms of elliptically, to turn this strand of islam into a minority that has no political power, theres got to be open support of this effort. Its got to be part of an open coalition which will show the muslim world and the sunni world, which is part of it, that this is an effort which reflects the mainstream values of islam. It is for them to purge this poison that the strand has produced. Why havent Muslim Leaders in this country, especially and elsewhere, spoken out more publicly against isis . I think they have spoken out publicly. I dont know its been covered adequately. I think in other countries they have not. A number of imams in other countries, as a matter ever fact, aided and abetted the extremists, put it that way. They could either flow from an ideological agreement or monetary support. Theres all kinds of motivation that can be there. It needs to be done more because, again, this poisons got to be purged by islam. Its totally antiislam. I will always i wont go into that anecdote, takes too long, but a conversation i had with sadat reinforced my belief that totallyam islam is inconsistent with what the fanatics are doing. To get back to those three countries. Do you believe that their role in the coalition thats saudi arabia, turkey, jordan for example will be visible to the American Public and visible to everybody in terms of actual contribution to a coalition . The hope is that it will be. Thats what the effort is of secretary kerry and the president right now is that it be open. It needs to be for it to be for this effort to be successful long term. Its obvious that isis is a threat to them. And i think now that they can do it openly without fear of retaliation in their own countries by a minority that will take to the streets. I noticed the president actually didnt call the ouster of assad again, how do you weaken and attack isis without strengthening assad . Because you go after both of the problems by various ways. Inside of syria, but mainly by training and equipping the forces that oppose those two alternatives, which are now in iraq, holding open a third alternative. The two alternatives syria, i misspoke. The two alternatives now in syria are either assad or isis. Moderates have been weakened. So you got two alternatives. The goal of the president is to have a third alternative that is offered in iraq. And it may be complicated to have both of these efforts going on in the same country, but for the most part they will be focused in different parts of the country. Most of the reporting has suggested that people are cautious about this whole approach of find it hard to imagine it working or at least recommendations that there had to be some kind of larger American Military on the ground presence, not a lot of troops, but certainly a larger or some force of special forces or Something Like that in order to give this a greater chance of success, this overall strategy. Is that suggest would agree something you would agree with . Not combat forces on the ground, no. Number one, it is not necessary. Number two, it works against us politically. It doesnt delay the responsibility where it must fall, which is on the people in iraq. And syria, to achieve these goals by themselves. A unified iraq, less sectarian than under maliki. And a syria which purges itself hopefully of both assad and of isis. The facts on the ground about the iraqi army after all these years are not encouraging. And is there any reason to believe that that armys going to perform better . The hope is that a new government, which is not sectarian, the way maliki was, will have the support of an army unlike the previous army, which was not willing to support a sectarian government in baghdad. Senator, do you believe that theres that the president is actually being drawn into another conflict or is intentionally being drawn into this conflict by isis and related groups . Its something that sort of they want for their strategy . They might want it, but they wont want it after what they are going to face. Its hard to psychoanalyze people whose mentality is on a different planet from my perspective. They may want it. They may want death. A lot of people who say that these folks want death. They want to be killed. They want to get to heaven faster. If thats their wish, we should try to help them achieve it. Achieve it. Speaking of psychoanalysis, could you give us could you give us your overall sense of the president s ability i dont mean his personal ability, but his ability to pull all this together, to pull together a congress, coalition, public . Hes taken a terrible beating among the chattering classes and the pontificators in the last several months. His poll ratings may have dropped. They may have gone up somewhat after these beheadings that have galvanized people. But he would appear to be at a stage where his Foreign Policy presence has been weakened. Yet hes got this huge challenge. How among congress and your sense, how well is he able to pull this together at this time of his presidency . Hes able to do it. I predict hell succeed in doing this for a number of reasons. Number one, the American People want to respond to this threat. Its clear from the nature of the threat. Its clear from those the beheading events that the American People want a strong response. They will support the strong response which we saw yesterday from the president. Secondly, the World Community is going to galvanize here. Thats essential. This president really has had a number of kind of strains in his thinking, which i think the American People support. Number one is, force is a last resort. Secondly, they want i think they agree with this president in saying that we cannot achieve for others what they are unwilling to achieve for themselves. The people of iraq and syria have got to basically make the decision and fight for their own countries and their own freedoms. We can help. We should help. But the main focus cannot be us invading a country the way it was in the iraq war. So that is another strand in the president s thinking. The third strand, which i believe the American People support, is that you need an International Coalition, unlike iraq, whereas a western country going in without any arab support into a muslim country, what this president has always focused on is coalition. A broadbased coalition, not just a western coalition, which already i think is clear that theres going to be many western countries that will participate in what the president has outlined, but having visible arab support is what his goal is. And that is something which i believe the American People also support. Do you see a chance of this spreading into saudi arabia, for example . Conflict . Not in a big way in terms of violent acts. There have already been violent acts in many countries. I cant say there wont be violent acts in many countries. But in terms of largescale civil wartype environment, i dont see it. Do you see this very intense focus on isis now, especially reinforced by the president s speech, as somehow providing putin with an opportunity to do some things in ukraine that would perhaps have gotten more attention . I think hes kind of moving in the other direction from this mornings reports in terms of removing some presence there. I dont think so. I think ukraine is very, very much in the minds of this administration, and should be, and i hope that we find a way to not only add additional pressure with sanctions until putin lives up to international norms, but also provide additional military equipment to the ukrainians. Their president s going to be here next week. I have not met him, but what i read about him hes an impressive person in terms of him being a patriot, ukrainian patriot, but also someone whos got some kind of business sense which gives him a certain kind of cachet, i think. But also hes been, i think, strong, relative to his comments about putin. Just two quick questions before we turn to the audience. One, this at a time like this where theres so much emphasis on what the world is really like today and a lot of conflict, on the other hand the size of the army and the marine corps are continuing to decline. Does that bother you as a leader of the Armed Services committee . I think we have to downsize somewhat. We are doing it in a cautious way. I am troubled by the hit the readiness has taken through some of the budget cuts. And theres been an effort with some success to restore the readiness. But we are going to have a somewhat smaller military, but it is always ready. Thats the key. Thats the decision. Where we have also shorted ourselves is on some modernization. So i believe that the whole sequestration decision, looking back at it, was wrong, his purpose was not to be implemented. Its purpose making these acrosstheboard cuts, the purpose was never to be implemented. It was to force us to do something rational. It did not succeed in that regard. I think we ought to find a way to repeal sequestration. If you had a halfhour i would tell you how i will do it. The i wont be around here to implement it anyway. That doesnt mean youre ok with the troop levels . With the gradual reduction, i am. Also i know you have been to times and its kind of gotten off the map a little bit, but there is this sense, again critics talk about how the withdrawal from afghanistan and iraq has perhaps contributed to the ascension of isis. Just give us the quick look of the situation in afghanistan if you wouldnt mind. In afghanistan the glass is at least half full and i believe getting fuller. Its not the perception of the American People. I think the Media Coverage of afghanistan has been so overwhelmly negative focusing on the bad events which are there but not focusing at all on the accomplishments which are really quite extraordinary in terms of the number of kids that are going to school, including girls. 40 of the students now are girls. 40 of the teachers are women. The opening of universities. Kabul is a totally different place in it tormep terms of businesses and people on the streets. Ive been there a dozen times. It is visible what the difference is in afghanistan. The Afghan People are glad we came. The Afghan People, according to their polls, believe weve had real success. We being a coalition. How is it that the person people overwhelmingly think its a failure . Where do the American People get their information from . They get it from our media. If the media doesnt cover the Positive Side of the story, the American People understandably are going to say it looks like we failed in afghanistan. I think bob gates put it well, he said this is the first war that he has ever seen the afghanistan is the first war that hes ever seen that the closer you get to it, the better it looks. Well, ok. We will now get close to our audience. Please wait for the microphone. Speak directly into it. State your name, affiliation, stand up, of course and keep your comments to questions and brief ones, please. Thanks. Im with the atlantic council. I want to go back to the assad question. The syrian moderate opposition socalled has not gotten its act together in the last three years. It has been feckless. It seems a huge leap of faith now to think that we really can create an alternative in that country. And if i could tack on an associated question. If one assumes that eventually you do have to get rid of assad to get rid of isis, dont we have to work with the iranians in order to engineer this . We are not going to work with the iranians to do that. Their motivations are different from our motivations. They support assad. We dont. And is it a complex situation . Yes. Is it achieveable . I believe it is achieveable. Its a huge challenge. There are going to be forces trained and equipped to go after isis. We want to keep the heat on assad. Its a large country. Most of the territory which is effectively governed by isis is in a different part of iraq than the part that is essentially governed by assad. And theres also parts that are governor earned by the moderate. So its complex but it has to be done. I dont know of any better alternative. I just dont know a better alternative than what the president laid out. I mean if were sending in u. S. Troops and western troops in there, if any of the people who are critical of this want to do that, there may be some, they should say so. I heard some of the republican criticism has been even before the speech this isnt your question. It gives me the opportunity to pick a bone anyway with some of the partisanship here. I have never seen, never seen some virulent partisan ship in 36 years, particularly in the area of international policy. I mean i was a critic of president bushs going to war in iraq. I voted against it. I thought it was a mistake. And then the vote was there and i joined in supporting our troops. But it was never continual. It was never just rat atat tat against bush. It was you agree with him, you disagree. If you disagree with him, youre civil and you move on. On the eve of the president s speech Mitch Mcconnell on the floor attacks the president on every single the president is to blame for everything in Foreign Policy he was focusing on. This is on the eve of a president s speech. Ive seen republicans in a highly partisan way attack the president when hes abroad. We would never do that on a when a president is abroad. The republican partisanship against this president has reached a level i have never seen in 36 years. Thats not in response to your question but thanks for bearing with me. Yes, this gentleman. Thank you. Jonathan from congressional quarterly. Senator, have you given any thought to what plan b ought to be in the Ground Forces that were counting on to defeat isis both in iraq and syria dont, if isis beats them . Well, i think first of all youve got to fully flush out the coalition and to see how that works and as you do that you obviously want a plan b, but i think plan a is being flushed out militarily and i the focus has got to be right now on flushing out plan a. You know, i dont think theres a plan b that has come to anyones mind because if there were a better plan than this one, i think people would have proposed it, and i havent heard too many alternatives to this plan. Ive heard a lot of criticism, but i havent heard my alternatives. So the answer is we should and hopefully will both inside the pentagon, inside the state department, inside the white house be working on alternatives as this is under way. But i dont think theres a fully flushed plan a yet in terms of the coalition being put together and so its got personally i have not. Do i think its being thought of . I hope so, plan b. Sir. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your comments. Particularly in light of the end of your comments to the previous questioner here, i heard you say and i appreciate the need for congressional support. But in light of that current attitude preventing the congress, how do you see that happening and when do you see that happening . Incidentally it was reassuring to hear from some responsible republicans and democrats some bipartisan support for that in the press this morning. I think it will get the president s proposal will get bipartisan support. I think some of the voices hopefully now against the president are going to now cool it for a while why we try to see if we can find a way to support the president , whether its through a new aumf or whether its through a resolution of support, whether its through supporting the funding hes asked for for training and equiping this title 10, which sounds technical. That gets to the question of the openness of the support which is so critical. Open support is critical to longterm success. I believe there will be bipartisan support. I dont know the form, because theres many ways you can express support here. The aumf approach has got some complexities to it as we saw in the last aumf which is still in effect 11 years later. So i hope now in terms of timing , i hope we can come up with a some mechanism of support, whether its a combination of supporting the title 10 request for training and equip money, which i surely hope we are going to do before we leave, whether its an addition to that, some kind of a resolution of support, which is perhaps have less of a legal document which is what an authorization for the use of military force is because that is in law and it could be more possibly some kind of a sense of a Congress Resolution of support. I hope we can do something in that area before we leave as well as the title 10 Financial Support for the 500 million. And i think both of those are possible. The aumf will take a longer time to figure that out because again that is a legal binding document which has some implications in terms of how long a period, what are the limits. Of course youve got to work out some language, which you as a fantastic lawyer takes some time. Thank you very much for 36 incredible years in the United States senate. I want to come back to the question that barbara raised. Are we absolutely certain that iran is not willing to play a constructive role in dealing with assad in replacing him somehow . And is there an opportunity for us to have a conversation with iran about replacing assad as we deal with isis, which they clearly see as an immense threat to them . I am puzzled by why today we are just paralyzed it seems like in dealing with opportunities where the enemy of our enemy may be our friend, at least for a period of time and why we are unwilling to seize these moments. Ive been involved for 10 years in an outreach to iran. So its totally passion for me in a pro bono project but i strongly believe, senator god help us in dealing with iran over the next five to 10 years. I just want us to be as creative as we possibly can be in dealing with the situation. Your question is are we paralyzed . Also, are we certain that iran is not open to helping us deal with a postassad syria . I cant say im certain of anything in the middle east, first of all with those nations, with iran, with iraqi leadership. There are some things i am certain about in the middle east. Thats not your question. You asked most of the things you asked about i cant say i am certain about. I dont see how you explore dealing with iran on this area. At the same time where i believe why and trying to explore with iran a way of making sure that they dont get to a nuke leer Nuclear Weapon. If you try both at the same time the nuclear piece is difficult without talking about adding another complex issue to it. So i just dont think it is practical. I dont think its wise to see if that is a possible what you described at the same time we are negotiating a way to prevent them from getting a Nuclear Weapon. If that does not succeed, the ramifications are huge. We should not do anything which could upset it or raise their expectations some things we are talking to them about in syria be asmean we wouldnt tough on them in negotiations on the nuclear side. This lady behind you. I will get you next. Senator, thank you. One of my fondest memories was your visit. We had a democrat and republican traveling. The good old days. You have a room here of Foreign Affairs professionals. Can you give us any hope for some idea of what can be done . We are making people overseas very nervous. If we have trouble putting together this coalition because of what is going on in washington. Cheney was on the hill testifying. Dont send me their. [laughter] him saying that obama supports the muslim brotherhood, its a real problem. What can we do . We look for ways that can be bipartisan. He was a giant, he was heroic. He helped truman succeed with nato. All of the other things they were able to do after world war ii. He had to change his position. He had been an isolationist before world war ii. I know how essential it is. It is really at the moment where if we are going to get muslim countries to openly get involved in this coalition, we have got to be bipartisan here. If they see a squabbling and not agreeing things we agree on, i mean, ok, you can start arguing about if we should have made a greater effort. To leave troops in iraq after the government said they would not sign an agreement with us our troops would be protected. There is so much history you can argue about and i am more than willing to argue that and a bunch of other issues. Right now, the issue is whether or not the body politic is going to pull together to go after a real threat for us and for the world. That is the question. 95 of us think we ought to go after it. Us in the congress, i think. If we go after isis, the answer is 95 of us saying yes. Given that, there is a pretty strong feeling on this issue. Strong feeling in the public. 70 of the public thinks we ought to do it, too. For heavens sake in this , circumstance, cant we then pull together, drop some of that partisan stuff that we heard from Mitch Mcconnell on the floor on the eve of the president s speech . I dont understand why he thought that was somehow or other help this country or politically help his cause. I dont get it. But just the way i believe that isis ought to be cement, glue, that brings together the muslim world, 99 of whom have got to hate isis. The way can be a mechanism to unify the muslim world and expel that element of poison that is there and needs to be expelled, i think isis can have that effect. A positive effect in the muslim world. For heavens sake, the same point applies to us. Jack goldstone, Woodrow Wilson center. Senator, you have far more experience than we do. I differed to your insight. Isis is already using american weapons that were captured from moderates that we try to equip. Thats not necessarily true. The weapons that they captured they may not have been even american weapons. Keep going. It is going to require some input of american advisers, the Sunni Coalition that is vital to the success of this effort may be perceived by iran as a threat to displace the government we are supporting. How can we not the talking to iran if we are putting american efforts into opposing a regime they support . If they dont feel part of this effort, it may destroy all of the efforts we have made. If iran does not feel part of the effort . They are already there. Theyre already making an effort without being part of the coalition. Theyovernment of iraq, if wanted talk with iran, they can do it. That has got to be the filter. It cant be direct conversations for practical reasons. I am someone that very strongly believes that we should be negotiating with iran on the nuclear side. Against some very strong opposition to even talking to iran. Goal,s the number one avoid that catastrophe of iran getting a Nuclear Weapon. It can muddy the water and confuse and complicate those negotiations if in another area we are relying on iran. It could raise their expectations somehow or other, affect what they calculate we might be willing to do on the nuclear side. I dont want them to change their calculus, i want them to know how serious we are that they not get to a Nuclear Weapon and think that if we are in a different area that it could in any way change our position or weaken the resolve. This has been a fabulous discussion. My question is for you. How do we get the media to explain the story the senator has been telling us . I understand wanting to be the first on conflict. I think you have to start demanding from congress that they talk together. I remember when Condoleezza Rice was talking about this. How can we sell democracy if we cant make it function here . Im not going to say anything though. Its a strange beast. I think the senator comes at his views from where he sits. I would argue generally that i havent really studied the press coverage on afghanistan recently. I would argue that if you go back and look at major news organizations, they have done a reasonable job. The problem i think with press coverage often is when the action stops or when american troops are gone, the press coverage goes with it. I think that happened in iraq and it happened in afghanistan as well. There was intense coverage and many reporters there. When the withdrawals began and u. S. Casualties went way down, the coverage actually went way down. At least that is my recollection. One of the weaknesses of the press is perhaps that when americans are not directly involved, when theyre being killed or wounded, there is less of a focus on the aftermath. That is in part responsible because there are not enough foreign correspondents. I think that you find in almost any conflict that there is a very significant dropoff in daily press coverage. They have to report. They are not teachers. They are there to report what is going on. The interest level drops with editors and the public together when the u. S. Involvement drops. Senator, i want to add my thanks to your service and your leadership which have been so important. It sounds like you and the president agreed that he has the authority to move as he is has described. It sounds like maybe for different reasons. I think he has said he has authority under the 2001 aumf. It may sound like an arcane legal question, one of the concerns we have had, we have shared concerns about that. It might undermine support for the war effort. One lesson we can learn is building that support requires what the mission really is. For americans to support this for the long term. Can you talk a little bit about what the risks might be for openended authorization for the use of military force . Either how it has been used under the 2001 aumf or article two of the constitution. It is used for the field in the area of interest at the time. We get into these legal arguments that the groups we go after our pursuant to that authority and with that authority, somehow or other, it connected adequately to the group we were going after. It is a legal document and it has to be done with some real care. It was not done in the conflicts we have seen. We didnt have aumf in lybia. We have never had an aumf using airpower. I believe the president should get bipartisan support. I think the policy is right. You can disagree is how we got here. I believe that the policy that he has laid out his right. For us at this moment to disagree on technical wordings a concurrent or joint resolution doing with those limits, no Ground Troops relying on a coalition. These are themes of this president which i happen to share. It gets to the point of if we are going to try to overcome the complexities of an aumf which might be a complex partisan debate. It leads to that because it is such a legal document that is binding law instead of supporting the title x funding and having a sense of the Congress Resolution supporting what 90 of us support. Just put in there the parts that we agree. 80, 90 of us, 90 of us believe that this policy is right. Some do not think it goes far enough. Some might think it goes too far. 90 of us think that it is pretty close to being on target. Weve got to go after these guys. They are a threat. I think people feel that. The people whose country it is have to carry the brunt of the fight. It cant be us. It has to be us assisting them. I think those principles to have general support in the congress and the American People ought to focus on where we can agree right now. Instead of trying to figure out exactly what the parameters are which goes on forever unless there is a limit. We can spend a week debating how long the next aumf will be in effect. That is a really good debate. That is an honest kind of debate we should have. I just think that is the wrong message for the world right now. To have that kind of debate which we may not be able to conclude in two weeks without hearings, trying to put together a legal document and instead focus on where we can agree, the funding 500 million and some kind of sense of the resolution being supportive of a policy which is strong. Which is what the president laid out last night. Unfortunately, we dont have any more time for debate. It has been a very good exchange. Thank you, everybody. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2014] billxt, former president clinton and george w. Bush talk about the president ial leaders scholarship program. Then house and Senate Leaders are those responsible for the 9 11 memorial sites. It then 9 11 memorial services. Former president s george w. Bush and bill clinton joined forces to launch the leadership scholars program. It is a partnership between the president ial centers of was, clinton, of bush, george h to be the, and lbj