is the uae and others is it not right that they feel we have kept them in the dark with our negotiations in iran. and that has impacted our trust level with these critical allies in this region. >> senator that is flat wrong also. >> they said so publicly. >> that's not wrong. i just came back from a meeting in the gulf. and met with the king who support sup -- completely supported what we are doing, i met with members of the uae, and they completely support what we are doing. provided it prevents them from getting that bomb. that's the test of this. and a whole bunch of people are trying to give this a grade before it has happened. >> so you are saying all in the region are perfectly comfortable -- >> i did say that. they are not perfectly

comfortable. they are nervous. of course they are. they want to make sure that in fact -- just as members of congress want to make sure that the deal that is struck if one can be struck now will in fact prevent them from getting -- >> have you shared with them the details of where it standing right now? >> we have shared considerable details, absolutely -- >> are they apprehensive about that or are they comfortable with what you shared with them -- >> they are comfortable with what we shared with them. >> general dempsey i want to ask you, part of what is happening here is the second con -- >> you are listening to the senator foreign relation's committee, their hearing on the president's desire of what is called an aumf an authorized use of military force concerning isil, but as you just heard,

there are also a lot of concerns as to whether or not there might be some type of quid pro quo involving what is happening. the strategy involving isil and the ongoing nuclear talks with iran. we're going to take a brief break and return to the hearing right after this. movers and shakers. >> we will be able to see change. >> gripping... inspiring... entertaining. no topic off limits. >> 'cause i'm like, "dad, there are hookers in this house". >> exclusive conversations you won't find anywhere else. >> these are very vivid, human stories. >> if you have an agenda with people, you sometimes don't see the truth. >> "talk to al jazeera". only on al jazeera america.

♪ hello, i'm del walters in new york. we are going to take you back to

washington, d.c. this is the senate armed services committee. they are talking about the president's desire to have congressional signoff if you will on the ongoing situation concerning isil. let's listen in. >> i was surprised the administration did not bring forward a more consistent resolution that would have accomplished every one of the objectives that secretary carter pointed out. let me bring up three concerns in the time that i have. some have already been raised but i'll try to get through as much of this as possible. first dealing with the 2001 authorization. and why there is nothing included in your request that deals with the 2001. secondly to deal with the interpretation of enduring offensive ground combat operations. and third how you will determine associate forces. all three give me concern. in regards to the 2001

authorization, as has been pointed out. that was an authorization passed rather easily by congress to go against those that were responsible for the attack of our country on september 11th, 2001. i think many of us are surprised that that authorization could be used today against isis in syria. the 2001 authorization is the longest running use of force in american history. eight years longer than revolutionary war. about one third of the authorizations for use of military force passed by congress have included limitations on time. so that's not an unusual provision to be placed in a resolution. as secretary carter pointed out. question congress and the administration speak with a united force.

and i was very impressed by your comments. and you fully understand a three-year sunset on the isis specific authorization for the use of force. and quoting from your statement to me this is sensible and principle provision of the aumf even though i cannot assure the counter isil complain will be completed in three years. so center murphy and i have announced a bill and if congress so chose to include a three-year sunset on the 2001 authorization, would it be your view that that would be a -- a sensible and principled provision for congress to include even though you could not assure that the military operation against the -- those responsible for the attack on our country in september 11th, 2001, can be completed in that time? that it would be up to the next

administration to come back as it would in the isil campaign. >> senator thank you for that. i can't give you a clearance to that question. 2001 authorization of the use of military force covered al-qaeda and its exsensitive generations which have now extended for 14 years. they there is still an al-qaeda in the arabian peninsula, that intend to attack us -- >> isn't that also true of isis. >> well there is now a 14-year history of the tenacity of al-qaeda and its offshoots and their intent to attack our country. and i think you have to take that into account about whether it makes sense to put a sunset on that one. this is a new campaign a new

group, and so as i said in my statement, i -- i -- i respect the desire to have a sunset clause that doesn't derive from any characteristic of the campaign that i know of yet, that would predict that it will wrap-up within three years but i think we have history in the case of al-qaeda that it has -- it has purdued, it has lasted for a lock period of time, and i think that -- >> mr. secretary if this is a new -- >> -- makes sense. >> -- if this is a new campaign i don't understand how you can use a 2001 foundation to justify the use of force. so it's a new complain. and yet we still can use a 2001 authorization that was specific against the attack on our country. >> well, maybe another way of getting at your question

senator is the president has indicated a desire and willingness to revisit the 2001 -- >> and we're trying to help that along. >> aumf which i also think it makes sense in view of what you said. it has been 14 years. the only thing that i would say -- and the only reason i'm hesitating here is that we have to protect ourselves against al-qaeda and its successors. they are still out there 14 years after 9/11. >> and our congress will meet again, and can always take up this resolution with the next congress and administration. i want to get one more question in on the enduring offensive ground combat troops. i looked at my phone to get a definition of what enduring was, and it came up as lasting term

innocent on my iphone. can you tell me what the term could not be interpreted to include operations such as our military operations in iraq and afghanistan? since we didn't intend our troops to be there on a permanent basis. we were liberating. we were not offensive. why couldn't you interpret that language to include a ground campaign similar to what we saw in iraq? >> senator, i'll let -- i'm not a lawyer but the irn terp r -- interpretation i gave to that phrase was those who drafted the aumf make of it and it is intended to clearly rule out the type of campaign we waged in iraq and afghanistan,

because we don't that kind of campaign is necessary. and that's one of these things that that word is supposed to cover. let me ask secretary kerry to add to that. >> i think the president, senator has been particularly clear about this and there's a huge distinction between the kinds of operations that were conducted in afghanistan and -- and iraq where clearly we committed a very significant number of troops for a long period of time to offensive actions on the ground. the president has ruled that out, and what he has done is i think offered you confining deaf definitions that provide the limitations here. and i think the english language provides them. i don't agree with two weeks to two years. i don't think anybody

contemplates years or a year. that's not in the president's thinking. what he has thought of only and what general dempsey has been particularly clear about is not giving up the option under some particular circumstances where you might want somebody on a special forces nature or indebted nature somehow to be accompanying people or be assisting in some way. i think it has been very clear how limited it is or -- an effort to protect or defend u.s. personnel or citizens an effort to rescue people in some particular instance. perhaps a specific targeted operation against daesh leadership, for instance. perhaps intelligence collection and sharing. but the whole purpose here is to have a concept that's well

understood that is extremely limited, but not so limiting that our military can't do what it needs to do in some situations to protect america's interests, or american personnel, but it is not contemplating years, not even months to my knowledge. what it would contemplate is some current operation along the lines that i just described. >> i would point out in ending that the language we used in 2001 i think most of us would not have thought it would be used today. this goes to the next administration, the next administration would have the authority and have a totally different view on that. >> it may indeed senator. which is have president obama said i'm going to put it in the three year range. he said i don't want the new president to come in and face the kind of choice i faced on day one which had to be made

within 30 days with respect to afghanistan, so he gave it the distance of the year to allow the administration to get its people in place. evaluate and make a decision, but most importantly this is where there is a broadly accepted and absolutely clear congressional responsibility. congress will step in. you will have the authority. i would think you would be welcoming this opportunity to double check the next administration, to be able to make sure this is accomplishing the precise goals you want. in fact i would think this would be undebated by congress in that respect. although i understand there are principles where people say we don't want any limitations at all. but this certainly fits within the capacity to get a major vote out of congress and may i say to everybody, that's something else you have to think about here. when i testified in december and two weeks ago, i -- i think i made it clear that our interests

are best served if there is a very powerful vote in support of this. we don't have a message of america's commitment and of our willingness to stay at it and get the job done if this is, you know, a marginal vote in -- in the congress. >> uh-huh. thank you. we do welcome this opportunity. we also welcome the opportunity to weigh in on any final iran deal and look forward to that. senator johnson. >> words matter and i know we're hear discussing specific language, but this is puzzling. secretary kerry you said this authorization needs to be extremely limited but show the commitment of the united states. i don't see how you reconcile those two terms. let's talk about the joint resolution passed on september 18th, 2001 and why the current activity is

tenuously connected to that at best. that resolution to was authorize the armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the united states, specifically. it said the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on september 11th, 2001, or a harbor terrorists. i didn't hear anything about successor organizations. so again, i'm puzzled by the fact that the administration is firmly of the view that they already have statutory authority to conduct what they are conducting. and i guess there's nobody really pushing back that hard on that. but now we're talking about a new authorization, and i'm

puzzled by the fact that any commander in chief, if they already believe they have the authority to do what is being conducted, why would they want to limit that in any way shape or form. particularly when secretary kerry you said you wanted to dispel any doubt. let's talk about the specific words. the president is authorized subject to the limitations in subsection c to use the armed forceings of the united states against isil or -- man, this sounds like a contract. c limitations the authority granted in subsection 8 does not authorize the use of forces in enduring combat operations. okay. that's not a real dispelling of doubt. the authorization for use of

military force shall terminate three years after the date of this resolution unless authorized. let me read you one other authorization. passed on december 8th, 1941. the president is hereby directed to deploy the entire naval of the united states and the resources of the government to carry on war against the imperial government of japan and bring the conflict to a termination. all resources are hereby pledged by the congress of the united states. if we're discussing language to dispel all doubt, to send an unmistakable message, which authorization would you want to have at your back general dempsey? >> senator i'm not going to compare something from 1941 to a conflict with a non-state actor.

i was consulted on this aumf. >> secretary carter why would anybody want to pick a fight with the united states? why is isis putting out on tape the beheadings of americans, of other westerners? why would they do that? why would anybody want to pick a fight with the united states? >> senator, i can only say and read as you can hear and read what they say, which is that they intend to create a islamic state and they regard us and our friends and allies of standing in the way of that and therefore, they have shown their willingness to attack americans and our allies and interests. >> again, i would never pick a

fight with general dempseys military -- >> we will defeat them. >> the only way i would pick that fight is i didn't think that america was serious about coming back and defeating me. general dempsey, do we know basically what the floor strurture is? what is the current floor structure of boots on the ground? >> i would have to get back to you for the record on the exact number senator -- >> i'm happy to get ball park figures. >> tikrit operation, there are approximately a thousand sunni tribal folks, one brigade of iraqi security forces which number approximately 3,000 a

couple hundred of their counter terrorist service, and there's approximately 20,000 of the popular mobilization force, which are the shia militia. >> so -- so the shia militia dramatically outnumber the iraqi security forces in this? >> they do. >> and the shia militias are pretty much iranian sponsored, correct? >> i would describe them as iranian trained and somewhat iranian equipped. >> secretary carter i think you said that the outcome of tikrit will explain an awful lot of things. what did you mean by that? >> i believe it was general dempsey who -- who -- who made that statement. so i'll let him explain himself, but i agree with it. >> here is what i meant by that senator. there's no doubt that the combination of the popular mobilization forces and the

iraqi security forces they are going to run isil out of tikrit the question is what comes after in terms of their willingness to let sunni families move back into their neighborhoods, whether they work to restore the basic services that are going to be necessary, or whether it results in atrocities and retribution. that's what i meant. >> sensor rubio's line of questioning was laying out our concern that if it's iran that is at the tip of the spear here if they are sponsoring the victories, they are going to have influence in iraq and that's going to be very very difficult, very tenuous -- very dangerous for the regional peace, correct? secretary kerry do you want to address that one? aren't you concerned about iran's growing influence in iraq? >> i'm concerned about iran's growing efforts in the region.

and we have made it very clear that is an administration concern. their influence in yemen. their influence in beirut and lebanon, their influence in syria, in damascus and hezbollah. but a lot of things are happening right now in the region to be honest with you. and the -- the history between persia -- persian shia and arab world and arab shia is complicated. remember, iraq and iran had a ten-year war -- eight to ten-year war. people were gassed. iranians did not respond with gas. there are a lot of interesting facets of how that played out. and yes, iran's influence has spread at this moment and we're

deeply concerned about it but if -- if you are concerned about it now, think of what happens -- and i hear this -- we heard it in the florida house recently, and you hear it elsewhere, if they have a nuclear weapon and they were doing that. that's why this administration believes the first step is to prevent the access to the nuclear weapon or prevent their ability to develop a nuclear weapon. and that's our goal first to try to do that diplomatically. and if it cannot be achieved diplomatically, then we all have a lot of options available to us. but we are eyes wide open with respect to what is happening, and all of those issues we have made it clear to those in the region and elsewhere in the world, they don't disappear. if we are all satisfied that a nuclear weapon would be the conclusion, we still have all of these other issues with iran

and we will all need to be working on the ways in which -- and this is exactly what we're doing, gcc members will be coming here to washington to continue the dialogue we had in the region last week and i'm confident that we will -- all of us together take the steps necessary to counter what iran is doing in other ways. >> my final point is i'm not seeing the full commitment out of this administration, as a result, we're seeing the growing very dangerous influence of iran. >> senator kaine. thank you. we are now in the eighth month of a war that began on the 8th of august. there has not been an congressional authorization of the war. there has been no floor debate and i view that as highly highly challenging and

disturbing in terms of the way the nation makes the most grave decision we are supposed to make. count me among many members of congress and others who believe that both the '01 and '02 authorization are not sufficient to cover this authorization. if we authorize it there is precedent after the beginning of military conflicts. but if we do not act to authorize it i think from a legal and precedential situation it would be catastrophic. for those who have been fighting this battle without asking congress to weigh in i can't imagine those fighting on the

front line how they must feel. i want to talk about grand troops. the language is in the proposed authorization, and it has given some tone and coloration by the president's transmit alert. it says my administration draft aich would not authorize long hef term large scale operations like those conducted in iraq and afghanistan. and you used that as sort of a limitation. in the first gulf war, 697,000 american troops were deployed overseas for up to 7 months. that would be an enduring ground operation under this deaf situation? >> senator, i -- i think an operation that large of a state

on state operation is not something that we foresee as the kind of campaign we would mount against isil and then not foreseen by this aumf. >> if i can just say the fundamental nature of this campaign, and general dempsey made this clear, is one in which -- >> you are listening to the testimony before the senate armed services committee in washington, d.c. concerning the president's request for an authorization for the use of military force. i'm del walters in new york. stay with us. you are watching al jazeera america.

armed services committee in

♪ >> hello i'm del walters in new york. we are going to take you back to washington in just a moment where the senate armed services committee is now listening to the debate concerning what is called an aumf. in this case it is battle to isil in iraq and syria. the hearing began about 9:30. they have been testifying for a little more than a hour. but i want to go to our military expert here, mike lyons, retired army major, and as i listen to most of the testimony, there seems to be a lot of concern across