♪ >> 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 the aisle on the

republican side concerning the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and in this case it is iran. no shortage of distrust in that room. >> reporter: yes, del. both global concerns were -- one was the ballistic missiles and the nuclear threat. so very clearly this is more about iran than even isis right now. it's almost like isis has a fate with its defeat and the question is what happens when it is over. >> there doesn't seem to be any testimony that isil will not be defeated. >> that's pretty much again a given at this point. you heard even general dempsey say that. the other number of 20,000 shia

militia troops with only 3,000 iraqi security forces. from a military perspective that's not a partnership. that's clearly the iranians in control of the situation. and following that do the shia allow the sunnis back into their homes. so they are very concerned at the pentagon with regard to that situation in tikrit. >> and you have heard testimony saying they want this aumf to be passed unanimously in congress. what signal does that send to the troops on the ground if they do not get the unanimous support? >> congressional support is something all soldiers pay attention to. and it's one of those things where you find out who is on your side, and who is not. i think unanimous would be what the soldier on the ground would want and hear and understand,

if they are go to get into this part. if there is a split that is going to leave the soldier wondering what is going on. >> we want to make you back to washington right now. this is senator kerry. responding to a question posed to him. take a listen. >> -- if it's just us that's how they grow. and that's what they want. and we're not getting suckered into that. that's why we built this 62 coalition. that's why we worked so hard to get these five arab countries engaged in the kinetic activities with us is precisely to deny them that narrative. so as we go forward, we think the best thing that is happening is what is happening now. this is in fact indigenous it's springing up. the sunni are gaining confidence in anbar. there are several battles taking

place right now, in fact not just in tikrit. there are two others, two out of three, where in fact we are playing a central role in the other two. it is making a difference. and the sunni are prosecuting that. so as long as we continue to woe on the integration, the internal inclusivity of iraq and its government, as long as we continue to help the iraqis to be able to do this themselves help the region to feel empowered by it. that is a long term recipe for the united states not to have as much risk and not to have to put ourselves on the line in the way we have historically. so we think we're on the right track here and in fact the very strategy we're pursuing adheres to the very standards that you most want to have in place in order to protect against the mission creep. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

>> senator [ inaudible ]. >> thank you senator. and thank you for the testimony. this committee had asked months and months ago for an aumf or language to come from the administration. we're glad that it's here. i think it's overdue. i think it would have been useful to have that language or some kind of language from the administration early on. i know the administration was uncomfortable with the language passed by this committee in december. i -- i think many of us were uncomfortable with the limitations that were there. but i think at the same time we all recognized that we may have to endure some degree of ambiguity in the language and we're seeing it expressed or manifested here when we talk about what would be considered enduring or not? exchange for a resolution that would pass with a bipartisan

majority. at what point does it -- does it become -- since the administration believes that you have the legal authority to move under the old aumf at what point does it become not useful to have an aumf that would be passed simply with a partisan vote? for example, would that not be useful? is that -- is that worse than no aumf at all? secretary kerry? >> well is that worse than no aumf now? absolutely. i mean, it -- look we're -- we're convinced we have the authority. that's not the issue here. and senator johnson asked about that earlier. we have the authority because isil was al-qaeda. what they changed was their name and then grew worse. but for years -- i think it was about 13 years -- somewhere in

that vicinity going back to 2011 it called itself al-qaeda in iraq. that's who they were. al-qaeda in iraq. and they -- they have an extensive history of conducting attacks against u.s. coalition. going way back during that period of time. they have had a long relationship between al-qaeda and osama bin laden. they viewed themselves and still do actually as the legitimate heirs of the osama bin laden man -- mantel. they have had some disagreement in tactics with al-qaeda whom they separated from. but separating doesn't change where they came from who they were when we first engaged in the fight with them. there is a legitimacy to the

2001 effort because it began a long time ago against this very group that simply changed its name and some of its tactics. it doesn't change the threat to the united states. so we can and will continue to prosecute that but, you know, senators themselves have raised this concern that we're operating under this longest aumf ever. so there is a much greater clarity, and a much greater force that comes from a statement from the congress that this reincarnated entity and this current -- this current metastasizing that is take place is not going to be tolerated specifically. and that is important. and frankly to also answer an earlier question are there questions from some people about the staying power of the united states of america,

sometimes you hear that? i hear it. and i think it's important to answer that in this context at this time. >> all right. i like secretary carter's formulation of the need -- the need substantively to provide necessary flexibility for, you know, forces to -- to be waged. and second, the message that you just sent that it needs to send a message to our allies and adversaries, that one we're in it for the long haul and two, we back up the efforts of our allies and frankly that they understand what their role is as well. so just to end it i do believe that an aumf is -- is -- is certainly needed here. if we have a campaign that is going to go on for a long time -- i believe it will go on longer than three years, then i'm not troubled with the sunset provision. we can come back and revisit

this with a new administration and i might wish for more firm language with regard to what an enduring force is and whatever else. but i think we need to value also language that can get a good bipartisan majority to send that message. that's important to and as we know in this body we never get everything we want. so i come mend the administration for coming forward, for listening to us on this committee, as this aumf was formulated and consulting and listening to others as well. so i hope we can move forward and i appreciate the testimony. >> thank you. senator murphy. >> thank you very much mr. chairman and thank you to all of our witnesses. thank you for your extraordinary gestures to come back here over and over again to work with us on this most important question that the formulations 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 with these questions over definitions. i think the problem is in part that every different member of the administration we talk to does seem to have a slightly different interpretation of what these words mean and i can't blame them because i think as secretary carter said there's no historical definition of these words, but i think the lack of consistency has hampered our efforts to get on the same page together. and if we resort to just an understanding that these words mean something less than what happened in iraq and afghanistan, then that really is no limitation at all, and i'm barely a lawyer i practiced about four years, but i do remember the concept of statutes being void for vagueness. i fear that this would suffer that same problem if we weren't

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, and that's back to you, secretary carter. i was pleased at the language in the draft from the administration designing associated forces including this limitation that it would be restricted to organizations that were actively engaged in fights against the united states. but i just want to clarify. you said in your testimony that it would be limited to associated forces that were actively engaged against the united states. but the language actually says engaged in hostilities against the united states or our coalition partners. so as to this question of whether boko haram is covered under this it's not a question as to whether they are actively

engaged in hostiles in the united states so long as they are engaged in a coalition with a partner. this would give the united states subject to the other restrictions to engage in hostilities against that organization? >> i think you are reading it right. >> and so given that reading, let me just ask senator menendez a question again. would boko haram, pledging allegiance to isis be covered if the country in which they were engaging in hostilities was a coalition partner of the united states? >> well i can't give you a -- a legal answer but i can give you a common sense answer to -- to that. this is an aumf that really focuses on the fight against isil. we have other authorities, which have already been alluded to in

2001, which also cover other situations including some that may involve boko haram that allows us to take action to protect ourselves in that case but this is really focused on isil, and -- and the associated forces there. it -- when they engage in operations against us or our coalition partners as the text says, that can be interpreted, but has not yet been interpreted to cover other groups like boko haram, but just to be clear, under the 2001 authority -- and this is important to me because we have really got to protect ourselves -- there are authorities under the 2001 also that could extend to boko haram, depending upon their behavior and the kind of actions that we needed to take to -- to -- to protect ourselves. so these are always in my experience and again i'm not a lawyer i'm just observing this as secretary of defense,

the -- our counsels tried to interpret the law in such a way that we are acting lawfully and consistent with the intent of the enabling legislation and we are able to take actions to protect yourselves and sometimes they get to that when a particular instance arising. but i think it's important -- and this is the last point i'll make -- to err on the side of flexibility. i think season said earlier this language would seem to allow an awful lot, the how part of the provision, and it does. and the president, i think, is -- is -- if you are hearing different things the thing i would listen to is what the president said. and he said he does not foresee and this language does not authorize the kind of thing that iraq and afghanistan represented, and then he gave some examples of the kind of

campaign we intend to wage which secretary kerry noted earlier, we are enabling a force which provides a lasting victory against isil. that's our approach. because it's the right approach. but i think in my role and the chairman's role the -- some latitude there in the language is appreciated because we need to be able to do what we need to do to protect ourselves, and this -- this encompasses the campaign against isil as we foresee it now, and that's essential, because we need to win this campaign. >> just got a minute remaining. there has been a lot of talk about sending consistent bipartisan messages to our enemies. and i agree, i don't think there has been much division on the

message we are sending to isis we stand united in our belief we should take the fight to them. in the last few days there has been significant division between our two parties on the message we are sending to iran exceptional, i would argue unprecedented letter from 47 of our colleagues to the ayatollah himself that many of us believe will have the effect and has the intention of undermining the authority of the president. secretary kerry, you are hear before us this is a subject of great debate within the senate. what do you believe are the ramifications of this letter? what do you believe is your interpretation of the facts of that letter which state essentially that any agreement signed by the united states expires the minute a new president is sworn into office. share with us your thoughts on whether this is helpful for hurtful to our efforts to dry to

divorce iran from any future nuclear ambition. >> well, senator, and members of the committee, my reaction to the letter was utter disbelief. during my 29 years here in the senate i never heard of nor even heard of it being proposed anything comparable to this. if i had, i can guarantee you no matter what the issue and no matter who was president, i would have certainly rejected it. i think no one is questioning anybody's right to descent. 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 in the middle of a negotiation, particularly the leaders that -- that they have criticized other people for even engaging with or writing to to write them and suggest

that -- that they are going to give a constitution lesson which by the way was absolutely incorrect is quite stunning. this letter ignores more than two centuries of precedent in the conduct of american foreign policy. it -- it -- you know formal treaties obviously require the advice and consent of the united states senate. that's in the constitution. but the vast majority of international arrangements and agreements do not. and 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 non-controversial

laws. the executive agreement is a necessary tool in foreign policy. it has been used by presidents of both parties for centuries, and it is recognized and accepted by congress from the earlier period of american history. now with respect to the talks, we have been clear from the beginning, we're not negotiating a, quote, legally binding plan. we're negotiating a plan that will have in it a capacity for enforcement. we don't even have diplomatic relations with iran right now. and the senator's letter erroneously asserts that this is legally binding plan. it's not. and it's incorrect when it says that congress could actually modify the terms of the agreement at anytime, that's flat wrong. they don't have the right to

modify an agreement reached from executive to executive between leaders of another country. no president i think 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 either sign off or not sign off on an agreement, i would like to see the next president if all of those countries have said this is good and it's working, turn around and nullify it on the behalf of the united states. that's not going to happen. so i have to tell you that, you know knowing what we know about this this risks undermining the confidence that foreign governments in thousands of important agreements commit to between the united states and other countries. and it purports to tell the

world if you want any confidence in your agreement with america, you have to negotiate with 535 members of congress. aside from the legalities, this letter also raises questions of judgment in policy. we know there are people in iran who are opposed to any negotiated arrangement with the p5-plus-1. and we know a comprehensive solution is not going to happen if iran's leaders are not going to be able to make hard choices about the size and scope of a nuclear program. and we know a nuclear armed iran is unacceptable. >> i know this is a well written speech -- >> this is not a speech. this is a statement about the impact of this rir responsible letter -- a letter that does not have legal authority and -- you know, i think you have to ask what people are trying to accomplish.

the author of the letter says he does want these agreements to be made, and he thinks before the judgment is even made that it is a mistake. so we'll see where we wind up. but i'm asked by one senator the impact. and i'm laying out what the impact. >> 5:26 -- 5:26 later you finished. i will say that i didn't sign the letter. i'm very disappointed, though that you have gone back on your statement that any agreement must pass muster with congress. the way we pass muster is we vote. and all of us are very disappointed with the veto effect -- >> mr. chairman -- >> senator garner. >> you have the right to vote any time you want -- >> thank you for the time. i want to thank you all for

testifying today. this issue of authorization of military military force is one of the most serious issues that congress can consider. i'm concerned about perhaps mixed messages from the administration regarding the isil threat. on march 3rd, general austin stated that isil is losing its fight against us. yet a week earlier, general clapper said isil remains a formidable and brutal threat. if the threat is real and requires a carefully coordinated strategy to ensure they complete destruction. i look forward to hearing from you in defining the breadth and scope of our mission. i remain open-minded as to what gets the most support but want to understand the details and to fully know that we aren't

unnecessarily restraining or restricting our ability to win. to secretary carter in your remarks you state -- and i quote from your remarks, i cannot tell you our campaign to defeat isil will be completed in three years, yet you believe the sunset clause is a sensible and principaled provision. you have heard genor johnson, genor flake, secretary kerry all talk about this. if the aumf is not authorized in three years, the next president would continue using other authorities such as the 2001 aumf. >> that is correct. that is the legal interpretation of the 2001 aumf. although the stated intent of the -- the president is to revisit the 2001 aumf after this one as well. he has said that and that's a totally different subject, but i just note it. >> in your verbal comments here you stated what a shame it would

be to have a safe haven -- or safe harbor -- safe haven, excuse me. and i believe you were referring to the geographic limitation. could the three year-year limitation be interpreted as a safe haven as well? >> it certainly shouldn't be. it is not by anyone involved in drafting the aumf. as i said it is not a number or time period derived from our thinking about the campaign. it is derived from our constitution and from the election election cycle, and it's for sure in our system that there will be a new president in three years. it's for sure that he or she will have had one year as secretary kerry said to get them on theiron their feet and leaves latitude for this to be revisited. that's something i respect as a consequence of our political

system. it's not a consequence of the battlefield or the campaign we're waging. i specifically said and i believe i cannot tell you it will be over in three years. >> and i think we -- we have had testimony from others who have talked about the -- you know the ability to go for three years of -- that we wouldn't be able to actually defeat in three years, but what we would be able to do in three years, so is three years the right time? should be it four? should it be no time limit? >> again, the number 3 has to do with our political system. not to do with the defeat of isis. i respect who do not want to have a sunset or something. but i think the logic of three years derives from the nature of our political system. there is no foreseen in my

judgment how long it will take to defeat isil. any more than you can begin any campaign and be sure how long it will take. >> you said enduring -- and i believe you said in response to senator harden -- that enduring is not an iraq of afghanistan. can you give any more clear than the term enduring? >> the president when he explained the provision, which describes how the campaign is authorized to be waged -- >> you are listening to the continuing testimony before the senate armed services committee in washington, d.c. concerning the president's request for an aumf and authorization for the use of military force. the bottom line so far that progress is being made but there still is much more work to be done. more news straight ahead.

hello, i'm del walters in new york. we are now into our second hour of the hearing of the senate armed services committee. john kerry ashton carter, and the joint chiefs of staff addressing questions that congress has concerning an aumf or an authorized use of military force, in this case the battle against isil. before we go back to the hearing i want to go to mike lyons. so far two hours into this hearing, and no talk of more boots on the ground. your thoughts?

>> yeah nothing like that. nothing specific about the military operation tactics. right now they are arguing whether three years is enough time. they go back and forth whether the president has the authorization anyway and we have hit up the 47 senators in this their letter to the iranians. i think this whole hearing has the iranian cloud hanging over it anyway. >> is that an indication in your opinion that the president's strategy that was widely criticized when he announced it saying he wanted a broader coalition, and if there were boots on the ground those boots would be from that region is that because the senate has lost -- >> something general dempsey said 20,000 shia militia troops

involved in this operation. that's the bomb on the ground so far. there's no way the united states would be involve in anything near that. if it is successful in tikrit i just don't see how the united states deploys any troops on the ground to ally themselves with those iranian forces. >> mike lyons stand by. we're going to take you back to washington. general martin dempsey is being questioned right now. take a listen. >> i think you all have said it's very important for our men and women who may be putting themselves at risk in the fight against isil to know that they have the support of congress. i think it's very important for the american public to know -- to hear this debate and to have -- to know that congress is supporting whatever action

that we take and 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 says that the president shall report to congress at least once every six months on specific actions taken pursuant to this authorization. if in looking at the aumf that passed the committee in december, the reporting requirements are much more robust and much more comprehensive. so it requests reporting every 60 days. it also requests a comprehensive strategy report that would be

clear to congress and therefore to the american people the specific political and diplomatic objectives of the united states and the region. it asks for clearly defined military objectives, and the list goes on and while i appreciate that there may be concern on the part of the executive branch about the level and the military -- about the level of detail that is requested in that aumf 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's 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. and i was always taught that a plan is not a plan unless you

have written it down somewhere, unless you have got something that you can refer to. so can i ask you first i think secretary kerry if you would respondent to that and then perhaps secretary carter and general dempsey as well. >> senator, of course -- first of all, believe me the plan is reduced to writing, and the president reviews it and there are enormous amount of analysis that goes into this so you are right, certainly that -- you know, it needs to be specific but i think there's a balance here between the amount of time and the numbers of efforts that are put into reporting, versus fighting the war, getting the job done. >> sure. >> and i think you just don't want to -- i have asked the state department to do a review of all of all the reports we have to do and the number of people and hours that are put

into reports that quite frankly don't often get thoroughly read or digested. so i think there's a briefing process that in my memory here works pretty well. and six months when you think of it is a pretty fair amount of time. it's not so much time in the course of this in terms of the review process that it does don't the job, when you mix it also with the number of classified briefings, hearings that will take place and so forth. so, look we're not trying to resist accountability but surely we can find a way to ambulance so that there's not -- you know an excess of paper churning and process that actually gets in the way of getting things done. i think there's a balance personally. i haven't talked to my colleagues ago it but i would assume -- i think they may feel the same way. >> i would agree there is a balance, i'm just questioning

whether the balance many the language that has been sent over is the right balance. i don't know if secretary carter if you or general dempsey want to add anything. >> i -- i think balance is the right word and you are both seeking that. and i agree with the principle. >> and i would just add, senator, it's for you to determine how to exercise your oversight authority. but it was aligned somewhat with the way we do our war powers reporting. and there was a logic to that. >> thank you. i want to make sure i understood something i think you said secretary carter and that was that -- i didn't get this quote down quite exactly correct, but you said something about believing that the 2001, aumf gives us the ability to protect ourselveses if we're attacked. did i understand that accurately? >> well it's more specific than that, and of course the legal interpretation is more specific

than that. but i was simply saying that the existence of that since 2001 has provided the authority under which we protected ourselves, and it's quite clear that we have needed to protect ourselves. >> but the question i have is did we need that aumf to protect ourselves if attacked? what i'm trying to figure out is why -- is whether we should put -- insert specific language in this aumf that acknowledges that the fight that we are engaged in now is one that is covered by this aumf and therefore the 2001 is not part of the action that we're doing now? >> i'll -- i'll -- i'll explain my understanding and then ask secretary kerry to add. the text of the aumf that the -- explicitly states that this supersedes the 2002 aumf and

the president has always -- >> right. i understand. >> -- indicated his willingness, and i think desire to revis sill the 2001 aumf. the only thing i would say is that it's important that as we do that i -- i -- i -- 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 protect us against others not isil. we need some authority to do that, and in order to protect the country, and if we replace the 2001. that's fine with me as long as it gives us the ability to protect ourselves. >> i have seen press reports that the white house is open to congress inserting language -- legislative language on this point as we did when we passed out of the committee the aumf in december. secretary kerry do you

have -- do you know if the that's correct? if the administration would accept that kind of language? >> iing don't know specifically if the decision had been made to accept language, though i do know specifically that the president has said that -- and it would -- it would sort of invite the notion of having language, because he has said that if you pass an aumf with respect to isil now, he will rely on his authority for isil on that aumf and not the 2001. so that would seem to leave it open. i just don't want to conclusively say they want to accept the language because i haven't personally heard that signoff. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator [ inaud echo to give our condolences to those heros that lost their lives last night. the israeli prime minister netenyahu stated quote so when

it comes to iran and isil the enemy of your enemy is your enemy. would you respond to that from a military perspective for me? >> well i won't respond to the prime minister's choice of words or his -- how he -- how he determines his national interest, but in terms of our national interest as i mentioned we have six things that concern us about iran. one happens to be their nuclear program. >> thank you. a follow-up on that is after two wars and 14 years later as secretary carter reminded us earlier this morning, al-qaeda still exists. that's not a criticism. it's just a reality. i would like you for you to help me define what we see from a military point what a victory is against -- with isil with regard to this aumf and our current task ahead of us. >> yeah thanks for asking senator, we actually rarely have the chance to talk about

the -- 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 is to suggest the duration of this campaign will be prolonged. we are seeking to find a sustainable level of effort and when i say that -- you know, i didn't have the chance to respond to the difference in aumf's from 1941 to 2015. it's important to note that the use of military force in a state on state conflict is very different than the use of military force in a state on a non-state actor. the other lines efforts are governance humanitarian relief and so on. we are using direct action with

our air strikes. and the other is building partner capacity building up the ability of the peshmerga, the iraqi forces and the sunni tribe leaders to reject isil. it will only permanently be defeated if they reject the ideology. it has to be rejected from within, and that requires a different application of the military instrument than it would be if we were fighting a state on state actor. the military does three things for this nation. direct action. build partners, and enable others. the best example we have right now in enabling others is the french in mali. so that's what we're doing. that's what this aumf allows. and the limits principle -- i sense some of us in the room are looking for a limits principle. the limiting principle will be

the way this particular enemy will be defeated. and that won't be by u.s. military action alone. >> thank you. you mentioned you were concerned about what happens afterwards with regards to sectarian violence and so forth. if we are victorious against isil in iraq it looks to me that iran is also victorious. can you speak to that in terms of that part of the definition of victory, and what do we do from a military standpoint once we declare victory over isil in this iraq and syria, by the way. >> there's a lot in that question. >> yes, sir. >> there's -- iran is going to be influential in iraq and has been influential in iraq. and i am concern about the ways they wield that influence. there's way that would wield it to promote a better iraq for

example. and there are ways they would wield that influence to create a state where the sunnis are no longer welcome. and my concern is the latter. as far as declaring victory against isil that's not for us to declare. as i said very much we can enable it. we can support a coalition. hold the 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. >> that is general martin dempsey testifying on capitol hill. beside him ashton carter and beside him, secretary of state john kerry. we're going to take a brief break and our continued coverage of this hearing will resume.

i'm del walters in new york. we continue to follow the testimony taking place on capitol hill this morning. concerning what is called an aumf or the authorized use of military force. the testimony now going into its second hour-plus. listen in. >> 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 a exercise in bad judgment especially at this very sensitive time and i thank the

secretary for taking that very strong opposition 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 strong hold that isis has in many parts of libya, and what it could portend in terms of u.s. commit in removal of isil from libya. >> senator, thank you. there are those in libya who are -- use the term rebranding themselves, as isil. that's not the only place we see that, but we -- it -- it -- it is -- it is certainly going on libya. and therefore this aumf could

apply to operations in and around libya against those groups depending upon their behavior and whether they met the criteria of this aumf and also because the 2001 aumf is extend 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. so both of those might apply to libya, and these are the kinds of things -- determinations that are made as these cases arise. but you do see in this social media-fuelled movement called isil people who are wannabes, or want to join or associated with al-qaeda or some other group who are putting up the flag of isil. and we need to recognize that's

the characteristic of the campaign. and that's why the aumf has the language that it does. >> if i may move back over to syria in terms of what all of this means for a long-term american commitment, our goal is to remove assad. the goal of hollande and russia is to keep assad in power. what does this mean in terms of the commitment that we're making to have the moderate syrians depose take out assad? that's their goal. are we committing to back them in their effort to depose assad?

because that's their stated public goal. so how -- how do we square up this aumf potentially with that longer-term goal which our principle allies inside of syria would have? >> senator, this is isil specific. there are those who wish it would include assad, but it doesn't. we are supporting the moderate opposition, however, very directly in the efforts that are focused on assad. and the congress -- and we're grateful for it has approved of the training and equip program, some $500 million have been appropriated and that program is about to be up and running. in addition to that there are other activities as you know

that are focused on the issue of president assad, but specific to the aumf the aumf is isil specific, and it does not authorize activities against assad. >> but in helping to fight isil inside of syria, and strengthening the moderate syrians who's goal is to remove assad, are we not at a minimum indirectly helping that goal to be achieved by potentially eliminating the threat of isil to that goal of the moderate syrians? and are we contemplating as a result, then a longer stay in syria to accomplish that goal as well? >> no, i -- i think -- when you say a stay in syria. we're not in syria. >> no i mean stay in terms of our military support for --

>> the military support -- >> -- for taking out isil and strengthening the moderate syrians. >> we are committed to strengthen the moderate syrians, we are committed to help train and equip. we're committed to other activities specifically focused on the assad regime but this -- this authorization, and the efforts to deal with isil are focused on degrading and destroying isil. and that particular military activity, should that goal be accomplished would then cease and desist. but the effort to support the moderate opposition will continue. now obviously if isil is eliminated, and the moderate opposition has gained capacity as a consequence of that particular fight they are 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 it will take for assad to be removed militarily or politically, given his current state? >> well it's two very different questions. i mean the diplomatic line of effort is the primary line of effort right now. i have not be asked to apply military -- the military line of effort to the removal of assad, so i think would actually defer to others on how long it might take. the state -- the position of the united states is clear, and that is that he has given up the legitimacy of governing people who he is oppressing. >> thank you. >> if i could just to respond to senator markey i would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a copy of

congress.gov where then senator kerry, then senator obama cosponsored a bill to entered into an agreement we had with iraq. i would like to balance out and understand that certainly positions change sometimes. and with that senator isaacs. >> if i may, senator, i was referring to the timing of the delivery of that letter given the negotiations which secretary kerry engaged in. and i believe that was an inappropriate document at the time. just not timely. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all for your service to the country. we appreciate your patience

today. you have been doing a lot of time we hope we won't keep you much longer. i have one question for secretary kerry. and that's not in deference to you. i want to thank you for your service, you do a great job for the american people and you have a job who has a commander in chief to a politician who is subject to 500-plus other politicians who control your funding. but secretary kerry, you know this is really a political issue in part and has political overtones in terms of the aumf which i do support. the remarks made by others about the need to come together as a congress as have a meaningful aumf are important. the first president to ever mention radical islam was thomas jefferson and the barbery

pirates. we know this is transregional. we know isil is in the levant, we have had attacks in paris and brussels. so it's a growing threat. if we have had problems dating back to thomas jefferson and if in fact this is a growing regional threat having a time limit on the aumf doesn't make a lot of sense on me. because i think we have a united commitment as a nation to fight and defeat isil. but that's a combination of a lot of things happening together. one of which is an enduring commitment. i think enduring in terms of the aumf means it doesn't mean special forces but probably 672,000 trooping being deployed. and i understand that is something the president would probably want to get

authorization for. but if we took off the three-year limitation, wouldn't we be better off to send the clear signal that there is no end to this conflict as far as we're concerned until we end the victory. that was probably more of a statement, but i would appreciate your response. >> thank you, sen -- senator. >> for thought-provoking comments i would like to hear them. >> thank you. first of all let me thank you personally, because i'm delighted you stayed on the committee. i see you gave up a couple of seats of seniority to do so and i well know why you did, and i certain i will want to express my appreciation, because i know you'll be a strong and critical voice for some of the things that don't always get paid attention to particularly in africa, so i thank you for that.

i don't think there's any doubt -- i mean -- i believe that the three years, if they are accompanied by the vote that is necessary here and by the accompany accompanying commitments by each senator who goes to the floor to speak and define where we are doing this and what we are doing, i think would be a healthy debate. i'm confident coming out of that will be an absolute understanding by everyone in the region and the world that we are deeply committed to this and committed for more than the three years. i think the three years will be respected as a reflection of a kind of political process here and not as a diminishment of the fundamental commitment to chive our goal. every country in the region is committed to defeat isil. every country, and that is

partly what has prompted some of the questions here because of iran's commitment to do that -- >> i'm del walters in new york. 12:00 now east coast time. you are listening to our continued coverage of the senate relations committee. we return you now to the congress. >> -- take a look at it see how it is going, tweak it if necessary, i don't think he has any doubt about the willingness of congress to continue that forward, but perhaps with some start of the art refinements, so i don't think it's a problem. i think we can deal with that and i think in order to achieve the vote that is necess