latest news head to aljazeera.com. "inside story" is up next. hello, i'm ray suarez. the president said our objective is clear - to degrade and destroy the islamic state of iraq and levant. but only now is he asking congress to authorise the mission six months after committing u.s. forces to it. >> we are strongest as a nation when the president and congress worked together. a draft resolution was submitted

to congress to allow the use of sport. let me be clear about what it does and does not do. >> the plan opens the do to some ground troops and includes a 3-year time frame into the next administration. >> thank goodness finally. finingly we are at the point where congress will take seriously its obligation. we'll open up the hood and look inside the power to make war. it renewed the debate over who called the shots. the president as the commander in chief or the congress of the united states. we are glad you found us at our new time and home. it's "inside story". the men who wrote the

operator's manual for the united states, the constitution gave congress the power to declare war. that same constitution gave the president authority over the nation's armed forces. the president asked congress for authorisation to use military force in the middle east. in action against the so-called islamic state. >> this resolution reflects the core objective to destroy i.s.i.l. it supports the comprehensive strategy that we pursue with allies and partners. >> the president didn't ask congress to declare war, even though the united states has been military involved around the world, no president asked congress to declare war since the day after the japanese attacked pearl harbour, and pulled the u.s. into world war ii. >> absent an imminent threat to the united states the right way to do it is for the president to present it to congress and have the debate up front.

>> this is not the first time it happened. whether it's democrats or republicans, we seem to allow presidents to overreach and congress to advocate. >> when the hearing and debate begins the tensions are sure to center on the future use of ground troops and how to define missions. >> the other major issue is the language pertaining to ground troops, which is broad, ambiguous. no one knows what an enduring offensive combat operation means, and deliberately drafted to be ambiguous. >> the resolution we submitted does not call for the deployment of ground combat forces to iraq or syria. it's not the authorisation of a ground war, like afghanistan or iraq. our partners didn't have the capacity to get them. i would be prepared to order our special forces to take action

because i will not allow the terrorists to have a safe haven. >> under article 2 the president is the commander in chief of armed forces. in 2001 in a joint resolution where it's sighted, the use of military force, congress gave the president sweeping powers by declaring that the president is authorised to use necessary and appropriate force against the nation authorisation, that he says: that stands today. the president requested another aumf. authorisation of the use of the military force against i.s.i.l. that's the issue in front of congress now. why do president's ask for

congressional authorisation of force, but not a declaration of war. do modern presidents accept they must ask permission to september u.s. forces anywhere on planet earth or any purpose. to talk about the role of the executive, congress and war-making powers i'm joined by mr craig who gave the president advice. welcome to the programme. could president obama have continued to fight the war against i.s.i.l. under the terms of the 2002 resolution that gave president bush open-ended powers to pursue the war on terror? >> he probably could have made the argument that i.s.i.l. was the legacy of al qaeda in iraq. and because the initial authorisation for the use of military force in 2001 authorised the united states to take military action against al

qaeda or its associated organizations, you could argue that i.s.i.s. or i.s.i.l. was a legacy organization of al qaeda, and related to al qaeda, and came within the authorisation of military force within 2001. >> on one level it seemed the president clooded he could make war on nil, because he's been doing it. >> he described the air strikes, degradation of military forces and material. wasn't he doing it. >> he was, he was wise to go to congress and ask for authorisation, it's knew it's an important step board in the effort to degrade and destroy the authorisation, to bring the congress and american people behind the effort.

i think it was wise within the tradition of seeking authorisation from congress to do this. i don't want to get into hair splitting, but i guess this is what scholars do. was this a political move to get the peep in the -- people in congress on side to present a united front. did he want a share to a policy he had embarked on. what goes on? >> all of that he wanted congress to be a participant in the decision making and take responsibility and ownership of the policy. more than that i think he wanted to send a signal to adverse air yeas that this was a national enterpress not just the president exercising commander in chief powers it was the congress of the united states working with the president, representing the people of america, determined to

achieve objectives against i.s.i.l. that was a strategic and military necessity and required fulfilled here as well. >> what is the difference between what the president asked for, what earlier presidents got and a declaration of war. >> the last time we had a declaration of war was when franklin roosevelt. after pearl harbor he asked for a declaration of war. had there been a government responsible for the attacks on the trade center in new york in 2001, september 11th we would have had a declaration of war against that government. it would have been as powerful and wide-ranging and unlimited as any declaration of war, prompted by the traumatic experience that also pearl harbor was in our experience. >> i do think that had that been

a government that attacked us we would have had a declaration of war. since, i think, the korean war and the vietnam war, and during the period of time when we were putting military force into central america, the government has sought authorisation for limited use of military power. and i think one of the reasons that presidents have been loathe to go forward with a declaration of war is because it is so unlimited and uninhibited and you'll encompassing. when the nation comes together behind a declaration of war there's no limitation on what you do. you may not have the political capacity to do it. harry truman may not have been able to get the declaration offar. >> i'm a child of the bay of tongan resolution, which served according to dean risk served

as a functional declaration of war at the time. and on the basis of a resolution authorising the president to defend naval vessels in the bay of tonkin off vietnam, we sent hundreds of soldiers 55,000 died. declaration of war, but not a declaration of war. on the delicate dance, and article one powers and the president and article two powers does the president not want to be seen to be asking for something from the congress that he thinks is in his power to do? >> i don't think you could say that about this president. this president has been careful about when and how he arcticulates or uses the commander in chief powers the article two powers that you talk about. he's been careful from the first to say that for example,

holding detainees in guantanamo or other actions he ha taken was authorised by military force, not using article two. so you know it's not that he doesn't want to come to congress he is coming to congress today. it's an act of strength rather than an act of weakness he's saying to the country it's time to focus on this and understand it's an important step. not everyone has to agree with every way in which i have designed the request for authority. isle going to be the commoneder in chief. i'll make decisions after the authorisation votes or amends or changes. i'll do that to pursue the objective against people. he'll never give up the commander in chief power or the obligation to protect the american people.

what he has, it's a good thing to do. sign on to this. let's talk about it. this will be a national effort you'll be part of it. >> thanks for coming by. >> we'll be back in a moment with more "inside story". when we return we'll continue our look inside the power to make war. the president asked congress for an authorisation to use military forwards against i.s.i.l. why do that when the united states has flown 2,000 air strikes against the so-called islamic state. stay with us. it's "inside story".

welcome back to "inside story" congress has been asked by president obama to give him permission to make war on

i.s.i.l. the islamic state wreaking havoc in syria. i'm now joined by charles stimson. former deputy assistant of defense under defense secretary donald rumsfeld. welcome back to the programme. >> thanks for having me. >> do you accept the notion that it's different as a country with an army. >> our country declared war five times. we authorised military force dozens of time. authorisation to use military force is the preferred vehicle

for authorising armed conflict against non-international or international actors. is there a tension between the congressional desire to have skin in the game and the president's desire to have a free hand in - in his commander in chief power? >> we have seen with this president pass was the case with president bush and others where you sit is where you stand. when you are the president, you read the intem, and you realise it's you and you alone with article 2 powers this president has not been shy about using drones. this president is not shy about adopting tacks ticks that others are criticised for. this is this president, like most presidents beforehand have attendant the responsibility and don to congress with specific language. the odd thing about this request

is instead of congress trying to narrow the president's request for ground forces or whatnot, it's the president putting forward language of own uses of ground forces. that will be part of the discussion as the hearings take place. >> could that be a reflection of the attitude on the part of the public. that an open-ended commitment action on the ground in a part of world where we spent too much time, is not what people want in 2015? >> that is right. in fact let's not be coy about this. a request for an authorisation to use force is a political document. greg said it well. this is a political representation of where the president thinks america is what he thinks we need from military leaders and professionals, and what the

community is determined to tolerate to defeat i.s.i.s. there's a legal component, which is lawyers writing things on capitol hill and debating the nuances, this is a political and a legal document. >> let's go back to the beginning, where you stand and sit. where you become when you transfer from being a mere human being into being one of the 40 or so people that have been president of the united states. do you suddenly become a the bearer of something you are conscious of handing on to other people. do you not want to constrain the powers of the president for yourself and everyone that holds the office. >> as for the first part of your question, read any biography of any president. truman lincoln. they feel in their heart, in their soul their d.n.a. the weighty responsibility of the actions they take wearing the

commander in chief hat. he's talked about it personally going to dover air force base and seeing the bodies bought back. talking to victims, families of fallen soldiers. how this particular president feels about wanting to cabin his own n constitutional powers under article two, we'll know about 10-15 years from now, or five years when the autobiography is written. i think that all presidents in modern history are peace-loving men. they have a goal of seeing peace break out, or trying to see the peaceful resolutions take place. war is the last possible thing that they want to get our country involved in. this president falls into that category. you take your enemy the way you find them. here this president, despite his best efforts, finds that

i.s.i.s. is on the march, al qaeda is not gone the african taliban is fighting and other associated forces are lethal. and so he is trying to thread the needle. there's no perfect language that he would send to the hill making everyone happy. there'll be give and take on the hill regarding the language. ultimately it's a message document a political and legal document. >> in your peerps is this a nonpartisan question in your national life. do people on both sides of the isle want to protect congress's rights under the constitution. do the presidents want to protect executive power? >> yes, and yes. but i think there's nothing that's not political in this town. unfortunately, we are sin conclude thinking everything is sign abbingle. the power to make war, the power

the president has to send troops in harm's way is something we need to be deadly serious about. i think the president had the right tone and message. i hope that conditions in the debates and harghts going forward, starting tomorrow and i'm confident that something will come of this the president will sign an authorization. what the details are is too early to tell. >> a quick break. we'll be back with more "inside story". when we look back. a look at the declaration of war. james pope had one for mexico. woodrow wilson got one before sending the boys there to fight germany. why does president obama need one a century later - still

ahead on "inside story".

welcome back to "inside

story" i'm ray suarez we are talking about congress the president and sending troops to war. this time on the program, president harry truman took the u.s. into the war. costing battle deaths and tens of billions on the strength of a united nations security council resolution and without the authorisation of congress. lyndon johnson did not ever ask congress to declare war on north invite jam. ronedly regan sent forces into graen arda and others under an article 2 power. and george bush bill clinton and george w. bush viewed the war powers as a technicality rather than a requirement. congressional assent was asked for and received in the gull war, and the invasions of iraq and afghanistan, but failed to pass authorisation for the war

in yugoslavia, and the u.s. fought it. for a look at long hist require of declaring and -- history of declaring and not declaring wore, we are joined by the chair of leadership and global affairs in austin and author of liberties surest guardian rebuilding nations after war from the founders to obama. let's go to the founders was there built into the constitution a tension between congress's article one powers and the president's article 2 powers. >> absolutely. the founding fathers wanted the president to go to congress and get the consent of american people before sending soldiers into armed way. >> was there meant to be a consolidation, were they trying to prevent a situation where the president takes the country to war on his own? >> no the founding fathers

envisaged the president using powers for police action. george washington did that during a number of small rebellions, but didn't expect the president to send forces for an extensive period far away without congress's approval. at what point do we segue from having declarations of law and having military force. is there a dins? >> the transition is where you started in your opening. it's in post world war peered. there's a large military capable of deployment. and the president after world war ii has powers to use the force that did not exist before. sending force overseas and going

to congress to approve and fund actions taken, or actions that have begun. expanding power of the presidency in the post war period. in the 1970s congress pushed back with the war powers act. what did it say. is it it mean anything. >> the war powers act was an effort in the aftermath of the vietnam war for congress to require the president to report and to set limits on the use of force overseas without an affirmative vote by congress. the problem with the war powers act is it's difficult to enforce. once american forces are overseas congress has one way to brick thembring them back which is to cut off funding. members would have to vote to stop sending money to support soldiers that are overseas. most members of congress do not want to make the vote. >> the constitution says what it says can you accept conditions

were there would of be a declaration of war again. we are moving into a moment if a president felt an ages taken required a large-scale milt which conflict against a peer power. if we were to go to war, i hope we never do it would clearly be an extensive operation, not a limited focussed operation in a small ear. presidents would turn to that. since world war ii we have not felt those kinds of wars we fought smaller wars that quickly expand moving behind authorisations that congress gives for the actions. >> quickly, one more. is part of the reason for the authorisation to bring the people in the form of congress

along with you? >> i think that's what the president is doing. doing what lyndon johnson and harry truman is doing, he's making a decision. members of congress do not want to vote for a declaration of war. they don't want full responsibility we have an in between position. what is missing or lost is a discussion about strategy we should have a discussion was a nation about what we intend to do whether to use force and then vote. that's what the founders intended. we have not had that discussion. >> thank you for being with us. tomorrow night we'll stay on the i.s.i.l. story, and move for more powers to the fight itself. jordan is taking a higher profile role in the air campaign after a downed pilot captured by i.s.i.l. was burnt alive. stay with us on "inside story" tomorrow night for more on that. i'm ray suarez.

our collision is on the offensive, i.s.i.l. is on the defensive and will loss. the u.s. president calls on congress to sign up to his plan to degrade and destroy i.s.i.l. hello, i'm mikhail gorbachev. also coming up. world leaders gather in links for talks on the crisis as the fighting substance. captain of did guilty of