about the way early action would be treated. >> it is. >> is that a particular area where you might revisit the way the rules -- >> yeah, we're going to look at whether or not there are other things that we didn't consider and think about, but one of the reasons that i brought up the idea of a market-based approach is that this isn't about developing a market-based approach where you look at a particular year and then, you know, and it's really all about where states are today, where these facilities are, what's available to them and how far they can move forward. but we've received a lot of suggestions that really fall within the category of a fairness, are we being asked too much, is somebody else not being asked enough. and we'll take a look at those comments, and we think there are adjustments that can be made, but we'll look through them. >> -- good rule internationally well, so i'm wondering the rest of the administration's climate plan, how did specifically

developing countries respond to that at the summit? i know you met with people on the side. >> yeah. there are a lot of things that i saw being discussed that relate to the president's plan. we had -- and most of the meetings i went to were with industry, so it was really fun. large industries as well as small. we talked about the 111-d proposal and the broad context about it's sort of game-changing nature, that it's a really strong signal for the u.s. the president's presence there was clearly another strong signal. i also had discussions with oil and gas on methane commitments. there are some great opportunities to work internationally and we have the largest companies participating in those discussions through our climate and -- what is it called? climate and clean air coalition, which is an international sort

of collaboration with dozens of countries and business sector. we talked a little bit about hfcs. there were big commitments on those as well. there was a lot of discussion over the development of renewables and how expedited they are and how much is being insta installed. it's just quite amazing. so all in all it was about the full range of things that the president has put on the table. and commitments that business is willing to make and trying to generate to advance this transition that we're in. >> how much can epa get beyond the 17% target when the president brings forward a commitment next year? how much can the epa play a role in going beyond 17%? how high would you like to see that be? >> that's a discussion that's happening now. >> what can epa contribute to that beyond the clean power plan? where else do you go? >> epa's going to look at its

obligations under both the clean air act as well as where it's heading as part of the larger climate initiative that the president's laid out and we'll do our best to calculate the reductions that we anticipate seeing. >> -- are you looking at boosting that 6% to some higher number in order to give it more of an incentive? >> we don't know what the response is going to be. part of the challenge is that that dialogue is continuing, and we'll take a look at it. i think we all know that nuclear plays a significant part of a low-carbon strategy in terps of providing a lot of base load capacity in this country for electricity. that needs to be factors. we pretty much in the proposal put a sort of markers down that we really needed a broader discussion. and we're in the middle of that discussion right now. >> two more questions, guys. >> you know, there are some industry representatives who are

concerned about what the epa rules might do. is there any sort of economic transition package you're looking at or some sort of programs under way already to help affected communities, coal country, to adjust. >> we certainly do have some programs available. and i know the white house has a liaison looking at those issues with communities. all in all we know by giving states the opportunity to design their own plans, we think in the end you're going to see a variety of different energy sources that will be available and affordable in 2030 and neither coal -- coal is not going to be out of the system then. it's still going to have a significant part of the portfolio, but how every individual state responds in terms of developing a plan is going to be up to them. and i think they have great opportunities to make this both as a state and locally the best

approach for them economically and from an energy perspective. >> is there a pot of money that would go towards those systems plans that you're talking about? >> there are many programs. i'll have to get back to you on what those might be. specifically they're not usually epa programs. >> the president -- fracking like -- and you met with oil and gas but we've asked for two years for a meeting with you. i'm really appealing with you. we really need to meet with you and show you our evidence. last year today we met with your people? no, my water's been poisoned by gas activity. >> we can talk afterwards if you like. >> that's great. >> ask epa to make a decision by the fall on whether to regulate methane emissions. >> a few months yet. >> how close are you to making that determination? >> we're not there yet. we've tallied all the comments up.

we know what some of the options are, but it will be a pretty long discussion. oh, yes, we did say the fall and that's what we'll shoot for. >> guys, we have to wrap it up. thank you very much. this weekend friday night the values voter summit. ted cruz and kentucky senator rand paul. and senator night at 8:00 p.m. eastern, a national town hall on the critical and historic impact of voting. sunday evening at 8:00 on q & a, "washington post" columnist sally quinn. friday night on c-span2 just before 9:30, daniel green and william mullen, two operation iraqi freedom veterans talk about their experience in iraq, isis and the use of american

force. and saturday night at 10:00 on book tv's after words, matt richtel. and on sunday the brooklyn book festival. friday at 8:00 on american history tv on c-span3 former staff advisers talks about the commander in chief and how he makes important decisions. saturday night at 10:00 p.m. eastern author jonathan white on the role of the union army in abraham lincoln's 1864 re-election. sunday afternoon at 8:00 p.m. eastern, author annette dunlap follows the evolution of first lady fashion. find our schedule at c-span.org and call us at 202-626-3400. e-mail us at comments@c-span.org. or send us a tweet @dspan.

on "washington journal" we talk to two legal abnalysts stephen vladeck and charles s t stimsonim about america's legale strategy against isis and the e] legal ramifications behind it. this is an hour. >> we are back. our discussion here now is does president obama have the legal authority to fight isis? joining me at the table this morning is stephen vladeck who g is a constitutional law professor at american university washington college of law. we also have charles "cully" stimson, a senior legal fellow at heritage foundation and alsoy served as former deputy assistance defense secretary for detainee affairs. thank you both for being here. cully stimson, let me begin with you. justho domestically because there's a a lotnd of debate whee congress should come back and gl vote for authorization of war, k

does the president h have the ad legal authority right ivnow? >> i think he does.ctions you have to really divide in debate into three sections. one is does he have the domestim legal authority? in other words is there a statute on the books that gives him the legal authority beyond his article ii powers under the constitution as commander in chief. second bucket is is there an international law basis for the strikes in iraq and syria. and third is does he have the cl backing of the american people and the congress?an peo i think the thirdpl bucket is clearly yes. the american people want to see strikes against isis. congress skedaddled out of town after 12 days in september to gt back and run for re-election.o, so the focus of today's s. discussion is obviously on the a first bucket and maybe the othem two, but clearly he does. but there's a robust debate among the academy of lawyers. steve's one of the distinguished members in that academy. it's a viable discussion, one

that has to take place, but they administration ultimately has te make the case legally for why they believe they have the legat authority to do so. >> where on the h books are you pointing to that you think legally they have the authorityh to do it?tary >> clearly the 2001 authorization for use of military force or to shorten it, aumf, which was passed a week after september 11th, gives the president the power, the express authorization from congress to go after those folks he ized, believes, he determines, plans, authorized, aided or abetted ni theyo 9/11 attacks. as the discussion plays out this morning, you'll see that isis grew directly out of the core e al qaeda folks even though they4 were created in 2004. the that's the argument for the reliance on the 2001 aumf. >> stephen vladeck, do you agree? >> i think i iodo, but we're jumping over a fairly important threshold question.th we'reor jumping over why the president has legal authority to

use force against isis. it might help to talk about whal force we're talking about.agains the why question depends on what we're doing.ies to a if we're talking about individual scatter shot strikesf against senior members of isis that may have ties to al qaeda, i think that's a very different legal question and a much easier legal question than some kind oh coordinated extensive campaign that has us introducing ground n troops into parts of iraq and syria. so i think there's a tendency jp especially if you're in washington to jump right to the what legal authorities can we to rely on question. we have to start with what are e we trying to do. what exactly are the uses of force president obama's conversa contemplating, what's the ity wc endgame, only then do we have the conversation that cully has quite rightly opened up about fw which legal authorization canaye use. i agree with him that at least the 2001 aumf gives the legal sc leeway if we accept the predicate that isis isit the successor to al qaeda.ng ahe

that's debatable based on what we know. at the very least it's efore plausible. but we're getting ahead ofha ourselves. the real question before we get to that is what are we trying tu do? what kinds of force are we talking about? how widespread? what kind of strikes? only then can we get into the weeds of the domestic have se international law question. >> stephen vladeck, you're saying the drone strikes, the individual pinpointed strikes, you feel that that's legal but going into syria and doing air strikes the aumf does not cover. that? >> it depends onfrom which stri your talking about.strati from what we know from what the obama administration has said ha publicly some of the strikes in yemen have been identified as senior al qaeda leader. al wa lackey was of plotting use imminent attacks against the united states. there's no question that the 1 president has multiple authorities to use force in that

case both under the 2001 aumf and if there is an imminent plot the president's own constitutional power to act as commander in chief in in self-defense. the problem is the line where the president's acting in , self-defense and where he's engaging in real offensive war may be elusive, but it's not ti. illusory, it has amazing constitutional significant cannes for this conversation. >> let's talk about the 2002 iraq war resolution because the white house back in july said to congress, you can rescind that. we're not going to rely on thati any more. but in a letter tuesday to the speaker of the house pointed to not only 2001 authors but also the 2002 iraq war resolution. obtain decisive action by the u.n. security council to ensure iraq complies with resolutions. authorizes the president to use u.s. armed forces to defend take national security and enforce those u.n. resolutions. take necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations

including those who planned, th authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks of september 11th 2001. it doesn't say there that they r have to be part of al qaeda. >> right. and remember in may of 2013, thd senate armed services committee held a hearing in which senior administration officials testified. i was on the next panel, the th nonadministration officials. and the president made clear shortly thereafter that he wanted to ultimately repeal the 2001 aumf. the fact is that the enemy is ty the enemy, and the enemy has a say in what they're going to do. and the fact is -- by the way, i agree with everything steve jusi said.fied the fact is that when i testified in may of 2013 before the senate armed services committee, i said it would be unwise to prematurely repeal thd 2001 aumf unless and until the threat from al qaeda and its affiliates is substantially

diminished. tot we've seen and is pointed al qaeda and iraq which is now isis among other groups.think look, theth fact is i think the president did the right thing.ts i think the president is takinge the necessary actions against this enemy which the director of national counterterrorism center matt olson said is a very dangerous threat. we canagre debate the legal niceties. i agree withen steves that we're jumping over some key steps, bui what happens when congress leaves town and the administration doesn't engage in a debate there's a void. and we're in that void right i now. >> stephen vladeck, do you agree that the steps are appropriate for the threat? >> i think, again, it depends ot information that we don't fullyi know.r fo part of what'slk frustrating abt this conversation is that it's s really hard for folks like culll and me and folks watching at home to assess all of this without all the information.go t how widespread are these strikes?over t we heardhe in an nbc news report two nights ago that there were 47 tomahawk missiles launched over the weekend. that's a pretty large number tof

me, at least if we're talking as about which was previously scatter shot use of force.e idel but cully's point bears underscoring which is i don't t the ideal orced situation. i don't think it's ideal that president obama is forced to look back to these 13 and e 12-year-old statutes that clearly weren't designed for this. whether or not it's angre plaus argument, that's certainly not what congress had in mind, i don't think that's an ideal situation for president obama, . don't think it's an ideal situation for the separation of powers or for us.ens of when congress leaves town to run for re-election without considering the dozens of proposals that are already out there, to pass a more specific statute tailored to isis, i don't know what congress left for president obama in that situation. >> i want to talk about international law as well.to beh how can you craft legislation when the threat appears to be changing? group f khorasan, no one talked about that. on tuesday the president mentions this group for first ou time. how can you tailor legislation

to a specific threat when you don't know where the next threat's coming from?ve' >> there's a great blog post on steve's quout standing blog called just security.org. it talks essentially about -- and i think it's your response to jack goldsmith, the law ok, professor from harvard's piece, that it's one thing to say, iss okay, we want to narrowly tailon it towards isis and perhaps khorasan and other clearly identifiable groups that are -- that have core ties to al qaedao it's another thing to say as chn jack goldsmith andge others are saying look they change their ee names all the time but they essentially flow from the same root. and we should have a broad scale authorization tore use of close military force againstly islami terrorist group essentially loosely associated to al qaeda or closely associated with al qaeda. so the question is a question of how narrow or how broad knowinge to your point, that the threat is evolving.

and that's a healthy debate. wer that's a good debate to have.ra remember, we've only declared war five times in our country since the ratification of the w constitution. world war resti, world war ii, mexican war, the spanish american war and all the rest have been presidents acting on o their own. >> the really tricky question iflar myth we get into that debate about broad versus narrow is what's th our goal,e right? there's a popular myth that after 9/11 congress authorized war on tear.ss was that we were m fighting a war o terror for 13 year.and re if you read the statute congress was much more specific. congress rejected language offered by the bush administration that would have effectively authorized war on t terror. the real question for thewh en american people and one i thinkt i hope they're thinking about when they go to vote this re inh november, do we want to be at war with every extremist ied ab terrorist group everywhere in nt the world or are we specifically worried about the groups that pose concrete imminent threats to our interests?

>> let's get our viewers involved. but senator tim kaine who wants this vote on the floor gave a ns speech where he said what, you just said, when president bush first came to congress they said it was too broad of language. they said, no, you have to narrow that. michael go ahead. si >> caller: how are you doing? i have a question. if it's okay for us to go to war to isis because we isis killed two reporters and then we say, okay or israel to go to war because they killed three of d. their boys. but cops are killing black boys every day.r? it is okay for us to go to war in america when our boys are in dapger and we're being terrorized by police officers here in america?ff >> ermichael, that's a differen topic. let me move on to george in florida. a republican caller.

go ahead with your comments or . question.ident >> caller: i support mr. stimson all the way. i think that president obama has no other choice but to go in there and take it to these guys because we all know that the al qaedas -- there's one other thing i'd like to say, if there are over a billion muslims and they say only a few are h they terrorists, i wish they would please judge their own. we did it to timothy mcveigh.th we lock them up. if there are such few terrorists why can't they take care of their own? another thing, why did president obama back out of iraq? can anybody tell me other than a political reason? >> a few issues there. >> sure, i think it's actually worth pointing out just how mucs president obama has expressed a his view that this really is a regional problem. that the other countries in the middle east, whether they are islamic, arab countries, whether any other countries whatsoever, all have a responsibility to

help here.a perfec but part of the problem, part of why isis is in some regards a perfect storm is because they control wide swaths of territory in countries whose functioning governments don't have the ability to control them. and so we're talking about northern iraq, we're talking ht about eastern syria, parts of the world where there is no expe functioning civil authority. those host governments that we would expect to just exercise ordinary haw enforcement powers to contain the threat by themselves is exactly what's broken down here. iraq can't respond to isis by itself, the assad regime in ay syria, whatever its other wart,a can't handle thisft this syria. that's part of what we heard president obama say at his speech at the general assembly r yesterday. because isis has all this territory and these countries, e syria or iraq are either unwillingpera or unable to dealh this themselves there's the imperative for other countries of the world but specifically

the other countries in the .egion to be involved in this campaign. >> cully, is it legal for the united states and this coalition to go into another sovereign country like syria and start bombing? depends. we've taken the position that syria either by bashar al assad's comments or reading between his comments that he's either been unwilling or unable to confront isis and that we g have tacit approval to do that and under this longstanding , doctrine of unwilling or unable that steve just referenced and because we're acting in collective self-defense terms fi because iraq has asked us to . help them and some of the fighters are coming from syria into iraq, i would note that thh dutch deputy prime minister and the australian prime minister ss yesterday after tiobama's speec made comments suggesting they weren't necessarily in agreement with our international law basir for going into syria. the deputy prime minister said,

quote, for military operations in syria, there is currently no international agreement on nt, i internationally legal mandate, end quote.presid but to george's broader point, i think president bush and president obama have been consistent in one way in nows t particular and that's that, you know, the vast majority of muslims aren't terrorists. everyone knows that. and the countries that are most affected by isis and its predecessors and al qaeda affiliates know that those organizations kill muslims in addition to western allies.gamea and sond both -- all those intee countries have skin in the game and have a vested interest in a defeating isis and al qaeda. that's why it's wise for president obama to work the ajop international channels to get them to help have a major part in solving this problem.onths. it's not going to be over in a few weeks or a few months.is. it will be a long struggle. that goes back to steve's

earlier point of how do you define this. >> let's go to burley next, independent caller. you're on the air. yes >> caller: yes, i agree with ams president obama with what he's doing. the problem i have is that the e cable stations, all the television stations, they want to know everything that the president is going to do. and when you get all of the information, we are not the onl. ones listening. al qaeda's listening, isis is t listening. so they know what our strategy is. and a country has to have the ability to keep certain information secret. >> okay. let's take that point. mr. stimson. >> i like burley, she's exactly correct. obviously we have to have the ability to keep national security secrets secret. and that's why people who disclose our national security interests without legal ers, m authority do great disservice to our country and are traitors to

many people, me included. yes there's a problem of overclassification, but we know that isis and al qaeda follows what we do. i'm not concerned, burley, aboug having an open and free press. n i think that's one of our disclo strengths. but iit am concerned about the disclosure and disgorging of national security secrets like snowden did. >> there is a fairly important difference between keeping our operational details secret and h keeping the entire warin secret. and i do think that the america people have a right to be emy involved in public debate about loo the enemy is, about where the enemy is, about how long osa this campaign's going to go on,h how much it's goingol to cost ad what the endgame is. i think the biggest mistake that the united states as a whole made when we went into iraq the first time in 2002 and i think colin powell has said this quite openly, is we didn't have an exit strategy. after we quickly ran over saddam hussein's regime, we didn't know what the do next. about

i think what t president obama being rightly circumspect about here is what happens next. suppose that we're successful in the first wave of operations, n what's the second wave? and what do we do with the assad regime, about the unstable government in baghdad. i don't think those are matters properly kept secret when the c. american people are going to be footing the bill for this conflict and americans will be in the middle of this conflict. >> wale quick, then i'll get to another call. >> agreed 100%. i probably won't be allowed back in the doors of the heritage foundation when i agree with everything steve rp,ñsays, who i good friend. the con what does victory look like? that's what they really wanted to hear in the context of everything. >> joe hager on twitter has this to say. whether or not potus has legal authority for this conflict, sor isn't his action covered by the war powers act? i want to show our viewers what the war powers resolution has to say. it's approved by congress november 7, 1973 over president

nixon's veto. requires report to congress on introduction of u.s. forces into hostilities. use of force must be termen itted a within 60 to 90 days unless congress authorizes use/extends the time.not he's still within that window. >> but not for long.tion. this will be increasingly a math problem for the obama administration. what we've seen is the administration has filed up to seven what are called war power resolution letters which are notices to congress about different escalations and different uses of force against isis in iraq and syria. each one of them starts the clock anew, but that's not whatr the war powers resolution was meant to accomplish.nal rest it was to create this sort of congressional constraint that there's an automatic off switch. and if the president can>> s ju reset the clock by sending a new letter that off switch becomes a pointless. >> seven new lettersere since w began this in early august in nm iraq? >> a couple werelett over the

summer, in june and july, but there have been five more reso letters since the beginning of august. so i think the war powers resolution providing at least ambiguous cover for the initialp operations. it doesn't necessarily authorize, but it seems to o contemplate some period of was a unilateral president war making. those 60 days no matter how long you count them, will be up long before congress gets back in november. >> it's not surprising that every president since nixon has taken the position that the war powers resolution is not constitutional or inconsistent with their powers as commander n in chief.izatio look at presidentn reagan and clinton. reagan and clinton did not get express authorization from congress for lebanon grenada, libya. >> clinton serbia, bosnia, middle east and kosovo. so i frankly think that the cone administration in the compressed congressional commander in september relied on 2001 aumf in small part to stimulate this t r

debate knowing that congress wa- going to- get out of town and that there was going to be a debate post-election. >> all examples are telling because at least thus far this doesn't look that different but it will soon. which is to say the longer we're involved in iraq and syria, the more widespread the strikes against isis becomes the less this looks like all of the examples of noncongressionally authorized unilateral war making that cully just invoked. >> thanks for hanging on the'm line, robert. >> caller: please don't cut me y off. i amgr surprised that you broug on two professors who just totally agree with each other ou this issue. the republicans lost control of congress in 2006 because they o supported george bush's unconstitutional invasion of iraq for no reason. and, you know, these guys need to check out the constitution. article two says the president u will beni commander in chief ofr the navy militia when called

into service by the united un states. that means congress has to issue a declaration of war.s not war powers act is completely unconstitutional. congress cannot give up its war making authority. >> robert, let's take that point. >> well, there's a e tension.se and the tension is between ction a-2, e 1 section clause the declare war clause and robert pointed out the commander in chief claus. that's a longstanding debate.d heritage just published its cla second heritage guide to the constitution where we analyze di each and every clause. there's a long robust discussio about the back and forth, the jousting between the branches of government. that's not going to be resolved today, it won't be resolved in e the obama administration, it won't be resolved.r a tension that the framers put r in place so they could defuse power both horizontally and vertically. >> do you totally agree with stephen vladeck?i'm >> i'm sure there are things we disagree with. i'm not a professor, i'm a military officer and i serve at the heritage foundation.

i think that there are probably points that steve and i disagree on. >> i'll jump off the cliff here. i think we disagree vehemently on where the line is between presidential war making and when the president has to go to congress. that's not where we are today. >> right. >> and the h reason why that's t where we are today is because you have these two older statutes, the 2001 aumf, the 2002 iraq statute and as cully said at the top of the program e you have no question that t isis congress and the american people support some kind of action in iraq in syria against isis.co this is not the kind of constitutional controversy that would raise the fight that i think cully and i would quite happily get into if this was anh academic discussione because there's no dispute about the principle. the issue is why we're good in,b what the endgame is and what thh terms of the authorization should be.rather that's why it's particularly problematic that rather than engage na that debate, push y yu through some type of compromise

legislation congress washed their hands of this and went home. that's why you see so much widespread agreement between irp commentators is because everyone agrees congress acted completely irresponsibly by leave this all for the president even though d they support his actions. >> we'll go to janet in maine. independent caller. >> caller: hi, greta, how are you? >> good morning. in ne >> caller: good wmorning.nown, i have --th well, i agree with e woman in new jersey. i think the less known the better. and try and think back to 2003 where we all didn't have cell phones. hard to remember that. but i remember orn hatch -- i wh believe i saw him say it myself -- that we knew what waso going on h because we were tracg osama bin laden with his cell phone. so he stopped using his cell phone. you know. and the other -- that's my

memory, anyway. and the one question i have doer anybody there know that dick izo armey wasn not for authorizatim iraq war until dick cheney told him some things that weren't true. and i'm dick armey influenced other members of the senate once dick cheney did that. does anybody know if that's true? >> do you know the back story, : cully stimson? >> i don't. >> we'll move on to eric in akron, ohio. democratic caller. >> caller: i just had a question about the air war.t they why didn't they start gathering up the ground war before they did the air war? >> you want to take that one, cully stimson, why do a ground war before an air war? >> i take the president at his word that he has no taste for introducing combat ground troops back into iraq and there's no taste in the administration's

palate either for inserting is r ground troops into psyria.strie that's a two-part thinking. one is air power and presis strikes along with coalition partners is the best way at least in first phase of whatever we call this war, to address tho threat. how its evolves, to steve's earlier questions, is totally an open question. >> stephen vladeck, are there legal issues with an air strike versus ground troops? >> you wouldn't think so, but is think the presidento, suggests e answer is yes. that is to say the war powers resolution, what few supreme court decisions we have talkinge about the stpresident's power self-defense have never suggested a distinction based on what kind of force we're talking about, but practically i think there's an enormous distinctioni between thers introduction of combat troops and scatter shot air strikes. i think we've seen that in the s examples that cully mentioned before the air strikes in kosova in 1999 versus the perceived tr need for kind of real al

congressional buy in. i don't know if that's a legal reality so much as it is a political reality but certainly undeniable pattern of our practice that if we're talking ground troops we're talking congress and if we're talking scatter shot air strikes maybe we're not. s. >> here's another tweet. peg tweeting in. congress should address the 100o u.s. isisul fighters with u.s. o passportuls that could return t the united states.hat. >> well, i mean, congress has ed addressed that. oris there's no question thatm we hae bolstered all of our counterterrorism laws in the 13r years sincee 9/11 to give the i u.s. government that much more authority to deal with lved i individuals especially u.s. citizens who are believed to be involved in terrorism. we have expanded the territoriae application of our criminal statutes so it's now a crime to, engage in s material support to terrorism even overseas. right? which is something that was not true on 9/11. we've had far greater success at arresting terrorism suspects overseas and bringing themi do s

to the united states for criminal trial in a civilian court. there's no question that we've bolstered our border security to deal with this threat and that we have plenty of criminal remedies if we get our hands on these guys. the problem is possession. right? the problem is if you have those who are in syria or iraq. >> let's go to butch in savannah. >> caller: where do we start with all this stuff?his mess i want to say about this authority to fight. i'm a vietnam veteran. i've been through this mess before and heard the vam kind of rhetoric.alled now it's called counterterrorism. werati called it counterinsurge. we didn't get a declaration of war. that was one of the main things in our war crowd including mr. kerry, mrs. clinton and mr. clinton and the rest of those

people raised hell about when i was in nam. the war now we're in the same boat, same rhetoric. just unbelievable to mehe p thad they put thatoi powers in thereo keep that from happening again.t and herein we are doing the samh thing, fighting people we already beat. the whole thing is ridiculous. i was a marine. because of this crap really b boilsut my butt. all right. mr. stimson. t >> hawell, butch, thank you for your service. semper fi. i totally understand where he's coming from, frankly, as a vet,d as a third generation navy officer. i think people on the right werk actually happy to hear president obama talk about destroy isis because i think what many on the right have felt about this loos administration is that there's a lack of appetite to talk about victory and what victory looks m like. the precipitous withdrawal from iraq that many thought was

engaged in by the obama esiden administration, the hang wringing before engaging in the surge in afghanistan many on the right thought and blamed the president for.espe true or not, people, especially vets, when they're ordered intow battle, if it's a lawful order, they do it. like butch and all his fellow devil dogs did, but they want to have faith and trust in the ctor commander in chief regardless os party that there's a mission go that can be accomplished and that victory is the ultimate goal. >> let's go to nathan next. st. louis, missouri. republican. >> caller: hey, yes, i i want te know why should we still even have a constitution or not just have a dictator? i don't care what law you pass u or patriots act law you pass, that still doesn't trump the joy constitution even though it hasa the supportme of the majority o americans you still have to get congressional approval to go to war. >> stephen vladeck. is >> that's t certainly true. but i guess the question is why doesn't president obama have that approval.

he has a plazible argument that the aumf that congress passed pd overwhelmingly covers at least some uses of force against isis. there's some that argue the 2002 statute that congress passed ndi overwhelmingly, that supports force against isis. would a everyone agrees and president obama would be at the front of the line saying we would all bet better offe with a case specif statute from congress with it congress actually speaking to this threat directly but not as a constitutional matter.ter th that's really as a prudential matter, policy matter, s all constitutionally i think the president has all the authority he needs at least based on whats we're doing so far. indeed, i think we're so obsessed with the legal ush' conversation that we're missing butch's point, which is the theu question of why we're doing this in first place.stion and that's not a legal question. that's ast political ioquestion. that's a moral question. and we've jumped over those rede questions to get rightrr to thi fight over legal authorities when this is a red herring. there's no real fight here over the legal authorities. >> our discussion is the debate that's happening in washington

and everywhere else, should congress be giving the presidentwant o authorization for this, does he have the legal authority. so we want our viewers to weigh in on that. let me give the numbers again. we've got two guests here with us this morning to debate this. take your comments, take your questions about this. stephen vladeck who is a law lw professor at american university washington college of law and charles stimson, who is a senior legal fellow at heritage as foundation also served as the former deputy assistant defense secretary for detainee affairs.h part of this conversation this morning. i wantgr to ask you about you bh have said congress washed its hands of this and went away, buy the speaker of the house, just as recently as yesterday told politico that the president has come to us and asked us to vote on this type of action. of he has not done so. so why not lay this at the feet

of the president? >> this is -- this is the little dance that happens between the two people at the eighth grade dance. you got the girl on the one side, congress is waiting for o the handsomethe boy across thee hall, across the dance floor to come ask them to dance and he'sd too scared to ask. i mean, part of this -- i don'ty want to be cute about this, greta, really this goes back ton syria and last year. the president asked for authority, congress didn't gived it to him. the president doesn't want to get burned again by asking for something orject putting someth on paper that congress may reject. and congress --pect and i thinks there's a political aspect to it as well. if that's not political enough.e and that is this president was r electeds. twice in part becausee wanted to end the wars. and for him to put his name on an i aumf and then send it up tn the hill and have them pass it e means that this president is not

only the nonwar president, he's the war president with his own aumf. >> there's a school of thought among political scientists that these days withy have a separation of parties not a hat separation of powers. c that's what we're seeing in these kinds of exchanges. the notion that congress shoulds not exercise its independent tc institutional responsibility to act in this space, to occupy this space, to pass legislation because president obama didn't, you know, honor some debatable norm of protocol is i think to confuse little fights with big r ones, right?t but the question here is if lay, congress believes it has a rolea tott play, congress should playm that role no matter what the president says. congr and soes i don't know why any re member of congress, republican s or democrat should care a wit whether president obama has or has not proposed his own he far legislation. if you believe as senator kaine clearly does that the cares responsible thing to do at this moment is for congress to pass a much more limited use of force authorization, who cares what the president did and didn't do?

>> marie tweets in this.ichard ntually obama should have built a rapport, interpersonal relationships with congress. let me go to richard in lake ae placid. >> caller: good morning, greta.m first of all, we have a president, a commander in chief who does not believe in victory. he stated subpoena that the way we won world war i or -- and be world war ii was flawed and it should have never happened that way. he also doesn't believe in the constitution. he said so as much that the constitution is a flawed document. and we've seen by his actions in this policies that -- his i imgrii immigration policy, his using government entities like the irs to against the people conservative groups and he especially with the obama care.. changing it the way he does

without going through congress. putting pressure on the supremer court. all kind of stuff like this. this is what we're dealing with. w okay, all right. cully stimson. >> well, i want to tie richard and marie's point together. there has been an ongoing seriee of actions by this administration that have, at least to those on the right, have caused at least some misapprehension or concern aboul the president's fidelity to not only faithfully enforce the law but then follow the laws as mace they're written.we do no the extensions in obama care, the irs, the list goes on and on. we don't w need to relitigate those then steib and i probably will get in a good fistfight ore at least a. wrestling match. and that is out there. that perception is out there.ma but i have never questioned whether or not president obama o thinks we should be victorious. i've never questioned the fact i that i think hen? wants to win.i i mean, who -- what president pa wouldn't want to win?

i don't question his patriotism. you know, he may deliver atisfy speeches iinn ways that some on the right don't find satisfying, but that's a political question left for another discussion. >> and i think it's worth stressing that president obama has been fairly clear, whether you believe hi wm or agree withe not that the reason he thdraw thought it was so important to y scale down and w eventually beca withdraw troops from iraq, to st scale down and eventually withdraw troops from afghanistat is because it's not in our interests to be in perpetual wars in multiple countries around the world. -- that's not about victory or defeat, that's about national security at home that it costs a money, it makes us less say and is ultimately counterproductive from a foreign policy and v÷ engaged in wars that may drag on forever and for generations.rying i don't think it's fair to say b that president obama doesn't believe in r victory.ot alw i think he believes in trying tw get us back to peacetime. unfortunately the rest of the world is not always willing to comply. we should hope that we have

commanders in chief, e the republicans, democrats, of whatever, who are aware enough, are conscious enough of their t role tha at recognize that the long-term goal of peace time must at some moments be put art aside for preserving a nationalr goal. another part of president's an strategy is cutting off the funding for isis treasury announcing that it imposed sanctions on 11 people in one entity that were sending g the financial support tois terroris groups including the islamic state. let me go to mo. >> caller: this is mo. musli first of all, i want to say i support president obama.k the secondly, ime want to say i'm a muslim. and i think they shouldon t sta- the media should stop using the. name islamic fundamentalists on these criminal. these people don't fight for islam!, da you viknow, timothy mcveigh, te bundy, david koresh, these are all christians. right they were criminals. anyone whoh

the united the right to go anybody that come and mess with the united ld states, i think we should defent ourselves and we should start protecting the homeland. but nothing this president has done that people would support this guy. this is the most -- president o i've ever seen people disrespect. they don't even call him the president. obama. i have never seen a president be so disrespected in my entire life in this country. we'll go to an independent caller. are you there? i got to put you on hold. you got the turn that tv down. i'll try to col back to you. dean in virginia, democratic caller. hi, dean. >> caller: good morning. and thank you for c-span. on the victory front, just to e comment, it's kind of like a . game of chess. t and you have to make your moves very carefully. but it seems that some people think that victory's wearing

boxing gloves and playing chess. it can't be done that way. you really have to be methodical. my question for the two guests l if i may, if saddam hussein was not toppled and removed, do we think that the situation in ira and syria, for that matter, would be the same today or would it be different? i'll hang up and take the answer. >> stephen tvladeck, you want go first? wou >> i think the situation in iraq would be very different. that's not to say it would be au better. commend aboutge. to saddam hussein's brutal regime but there's one up side to a coo dictatorship is some degreel, o control. too much control, we might say.r but i don't know that syria lo would be any different.e the that ball was unraveling for a long time.sh and s it's entirely possible that the conditions that allowed isis to flourish and spread in eastern syria would have, if anything, exacerbated by the presence of a not so opposed strongman just ie across the southern w border. so i think we would very much bn in a particular situation perhaps not so much in iraq butd in syria even if the saddam

hussein regime had not been he toppled. the largerf question is where iuld we be politically had we not gone through the experience of the iraq war. >> i don't think there's any way to answer that question, any cot frankly. there's too many contingencies and what ifs and assumptions. that's a great question. can't answer it. >> another legal question for the two of you, and that is on the u.n. resolution pushed by s. president obama yesterday at the security council voted unanimously. and "the new york times" takes issue with it today in their editorial. a new focus on foreign fighters. and they say this, another lly problem with it is that while ie specifically mentions isis and al qaeda, it also refers to he other unnamed foreign terrorist tion fighters leaving the term open to different interpretations by different nations. this is not a new problem. an intent by the u.n. to reach a comprehensive agreement on international terrorism has been deadlocked for years over what constituted terrorist organization. the u.s., for example, considers

hamas a terrorist group, but many other countries do not. the resolution stresses that actions taken against foreign fighters must be consistent with international laws including those governing human rights, refugees and humanitarian concerns. but the potential fo the potential for exaggerating the threat and overreaching laws that encourage racial profiling to car get citizens like muslims or persecution of adversaries is ó democracies and authoritarian regimes.will >> that's true. this going to look like on the ground? part of the problem is that we are all rigready there.ally aga there already are claims that the laws are enforced against muslim communities, that they e bear the weight of what we have seen congress enact. the real question about the resolution is not what it says grou how is it going to change what

countries are doing on the ground? we're doing the stuff. is so i think the -- the question e is not is this a new problem.e be moreth aware of the problem l that we're sharing it with our friends overseas.ortly this has been a complaint about the u.s. counterterrorism strategies. all the muslims were rounded upt in manhattan. how do we ensure that where he going after the right threat an? not over exaggerating it and sweeping in too broad of a net? >> i agree and move on to the next question.le >> civilt liberties as well. >> look, let me draw out one of steve's points. i don't think the resolution is going to affect one way or the other what we do here at home. d i think we have c had a lot t growing pains in terms of how wr addressro privacy but yet have i robustty counterterrorism and national security policies in place. there have been a p lot of amendments to those policies. there have been supreme court he cases.w

i don't think that resolution will affect how we do business at all. i think to steve's point, it's really going to -- the focus on should be on how those other countries,pa those coalition partners effectuate on the ground the principals. >> back to bayiba in louisiana. you are on the air.three qu >> caller: i have three questions.en first question is, prisoner has been released and they have not yet arrived to afghanistan. where are they?not the republican has stand up ande saying whyir they were not informed about the release. 195 but my question is, what are the 195 remaining of the -- which section of the law they are

locked up. and they have been fasting the ramadan and they have been treated badly. and in asia has been getting information that they are -- there's no law. >> i'm going to jump in. mr. stimson you are staking your head. >> let me interpret the several questions into one or two. i think her primary question was where are the five high-rankingm taliban detainees released in exchange for sergeant bergdahl. they are under a form of house arrest for a year from the date of their arrival. where they go after that, i don't think we have a ton of clarity on. as insofar as her question as it relates to fast iing, that has happened essentially from the

very beginning. it's not unique to guantanamo. prisoners elsewhere have not tha eaten as a form ofla political protest. the balance is this. i have dealt with this as the he head o f detainee affairs for a test i periodn of time.hunger we allow them the freedom, the e right to politically protest in the form of a hunger strike. at the same time, both the bush andill obama administrations s we will allow them to protest but we won't allow it to get toe the point where they kill rated. themselves. we believe in life even for people who are incarcerated or . here under the law of war detention. it's a tough issue. it's a moral issue. but i think both administration. got it right. >> if i can stick with mr. pens stimson for a second. i want to ask about isis and ta? guantanamo. whatgu happens if these isis fighters are captured by the er united states? where are they going? >> i started a twitter debate right after the isis situation

came to fore. what's the plan that the administration has for if and when they capture isis fight in sneakefighters? todayweny i there's a piece whey we are not bringing isis -- a fighters, if we get any, to gitmo. that opens a can of worms. they maintained they will not p bring additional people to gitmo. it we capturere them or forced take custody of them because ouh over to us or we are in joint eo operations with them and we havl don't necessarily wantes to han them over to some of our coalition partners, do we put ei them on a ship for interrogation? do we re-establish detention facilities in iraq? we don't have them anymore. disr do we bring them back to the united states for a prosecutiont

in federal district court? do we have the statutes that would allow us to do that? does the obama administration set up a law war defense facility in the united states, which the president asked the defense department a couple ' years agot to look into. these are all open questions. we don't have any answers to at all. >> just three quick points.g to on the question of what to do if we capture fighters, i think that's only going to happen if we start putting troops on the ground. we're not there yet. if we are, i want to disagree i withnk one premise.ny the criminal laws are fully capable of dealing with individuals who we have any reason to connect to isis in iraq and syria. so i have obama administration would bring them here for trial.ve i don't think there's any reason to change. i think part of that is because we evolved the laws. as for the hunger strikes, it's

important to add one layer to the description. part of what the detainees -- there are 149 of them at guantanamo are protesting are changes in conditions of confinement are the harsher can search procedures that they aree being subjected to, include ingd their genital areas before they can make a phone call to their lawyer. that's being litigated here in i wouldn't assume this is as benign as it may sound. there's a real new problem at ga guantanamo. there's a larger point, which is uat the fact that we have 149 men atnd guantanamo being detaid under the auspices of the 9/11 a aumf under scores why use of force statutes are a bad idea. 13 years later, they give us a problem we can't solve. guantan

we don't want 13 years from now to have an isis for -- to have a guantanamo isis. that's why we need congress to pass something more specific that talks about what the detention authority is going to be, how long people can be held. where they are going to be heldu wh never did after 9/11. >> if you want to follow what'si herald reporter has been covering it.oner islamic state prisoners to guantanamo, white house says no. richard, democratic caller, you are up. >> caller: yes. presi ide can't understand why mr. stimson and the rest always blame the president for things that the joint military chiefs of staff and the defense department does. presi these organizations inform the

president about wars and whether we should go to war, weapons toy buy. then they turn the president and inform congress. why do they want to believe theh president does this bye himself? >> i think it's the pentagon?ll >> caller: it's been that way t. all my 70 years.ey all the military joint chiefs of wa staff, they got stars on their shoulders. it's their job to know about war. guey have been sent to the best wares colleges everywhere. >> all right. >> i don't know why he's taking issue with me. i don't think i said anything that he is suggesting. we have civilian control over the military for a reason. our country was in many ways a where the head of the state was also the head of the military. we wanted a dividing line. that's good and true. the fact that a president, whether president obama or e

president bush or president fill in the blank disagrees with the advisers, it's a call that the president has to make with the advice of everyone around him, including his military leaders. military leaders have a different set of issues that they are dealing with than the president. that is proper and right and it's never going to change, hopefully. >> we have five minutes left. >> very briefly. it's important to stress that part of the civilian control of the military is congressional involvement. congressional oversight, ong vo congressional support. i think it's right to be a concerned that without that strong voice coming from to lis congress saying wait a second, let's make sure we know what we're doing, the president might be more inclined to listen to his military advisers. the reason why our system works is when everybody is pushing up against each, other.is a lot ambition begets ambition. that's what's missing in the

current conversation. there's a lot of noise on the executive branch side. very little in congress. >> darren, independent caller. >> caller: i was calling in reference to -- >> we're listening.tu >> caller: i'm aat veteran. i was calling about the current situation we have going on.-- c it's like this, i feel like we just opened another can of worms in the situation but also, too,s we do haveid to protect the homeland. i feel like the president is going about it the right way ion getting the worldd involved in d the situation. i feel from the right we're not getting the support like we aree supposed to and all theth p politics, the back and forth.an we should come togethered aamerica -- come together as americans. >> we will move on to daniel.bot what are your thoughts? >> caller: i was calling about the isis situation.

my question to you guys is, mera knowingn that isis is an americn threat, knowing that they have beheaded two american civilians, then telling us, we're not afraid of you, then saying in al documentary, we will come to america, we will raise our flag in the white house, knowing that they're not afraid, why not -- i guess you could say, eliminate p the threat before it comes to us as in sending combat troops, sending people on the ground, t treating it like the severity that it is ? >> i don't doubt the resolve of and the american people to take on isis. i think there has been consistency there. it's the means, it's the discussion. it's when they arevoid kùq'gagi. it's what they are proposing. but there's this void right nowu which we aret living in here a the end of september. that is, congress is out of

town. the administration is not going anywhere because there's a president and he's the commander in chief and the military is in harm's way by flying over iraq and syria.hether i don't think the debate is going to change with respect tot whether there's resolve to take on isis. from i think the nature of the debatp when they come back from the election and going forward will be the questions that steve and i posed.s how narrow or broad should it be? what is the end game? what's the strategy here? who are our partner ss? >> all these questions that we put on thee table today. not whether we should take on isis. we have a whole array of counterterrorism apparatus at sn our disposal to focus on the 100 u.s. people who have gone to ,0e join isis, the 3,000 or 2,000 en europeans who have passports who joined isis. we're going to take them on. the question is how. >> if i may, the question is

why. there's a dark undertone to thaw caller's question, which is theo assumption that if there's any group anywhere in the world that bares ill will toward the united states, we should take them out. that is not and cannot be our foreign policy. our foreign policy, our military strategy has to be that we only engage in this kind of military force when we pass the point ofr other alternatives, when we pass the point where we can rely upon civilian law enforcement, nts in criminal prosecution, financial sanctions, local governments ine those parts of the world to take care of the problem. we have to make sure we as an american people are convinced by the why here, that isis really does pose a threat that is sufficiently grave that this is what we have to do. are >> has that been proven?ng we is there a legal problem there when intelligence officials, eso according to the papers, are say, we don't have evidence thai isis is a threat to the united states, to the homeland directly. that there were no plots.

>> the question is has it been proven and if so to whom.e, but the administration has the burden of proving it not just to the american people but specifically to congress. congress has the burden of beinf skeptical, of not jumping on the wagon. saying, i want to see the intelligence, i want to understand why you need us to gh pass thisor statute as opposed relyinghave on the existing authorities. that's the conversation that we cve to be having and that congress doesal a major disserve by not provoking.don' >> the congress is in possession of classified information about this threat that we don't have nor should we have. that will in some part affect the debate, especially with respect to the legal authorization. >> do you see lawsuits because : of this? >> maybe. but not successful. >> they won't be successful.es,h there's a harder question of whether they should be.gal the question becomes, where would there be an opportunity to test these legal limits?

historically, it's been very difficulto challenge war decisions. 2 justice kennedy said we have been lucky historically, the supreme court hasn't had to intervene. that may change't do i wonder if the longer we see hs this kind of i won't do it, then you won't do it, i won't do it, the longer we see this that non-engagement and non-institutional preservation going on in washington, the more that might force the court's hand to say, shoot, if congress isn't going to do its job in the separation of power system, someone has to be there to make sure the president of any power don't run amok.e someth it hasn't been us. there's got to be -- maybe we're the last resort. >> go ahead.ese one last caller.

>> caller: i agree with you it' gentlemen. what are youth going to do? they're over there and they're just like a game that's here in the united states. you know? you can't just take them all ou. at once just because you want to. i'm okay with the air strikes ty and everything. but the u.n. has to get involved and all the other legions around there. it's their backyard. they need to take good care of g it and clean it up. t >> let's talk about the legality of the u.n. getting involved. >> look, i think there's a n. tendency -- it's not new -- to go to world bodies like the u.np or nato and drum up support for action. ta popular. if it's an action by a state inp self-defense and they have to take it because they can't -- they don't have the time to pull together, that's understandableo and people m get that.

but i will -- to make the agree previouswi caller happy, i do d disagree with steve. it would be a sad day if the supreme court decided that because of the institutional tension between the executive ni wo that they should step in and se become the nine commanders in chief. that would be a sad day for america. litigation may rise in the issue of detention of isis fighters, of issues related to other types of criminal litigation. the reason i'm skeptical about criminal litigation is yes, we have the statutes, but how do you collect the evidence and how do you put together a case as a former federal prosecutor, it's not easy, especially when you r collect people on the battlefield far, far away.road >> we will end here. >> on the last point, the statutes are so broad that cull would appreciate how little he has to show to prosecute these s

ba i have to say, i think it would be a sadder day if we go to war again based on incomplete int intelligence and without the buy-in of the american people. whoever will resolve the questions, these questions haven't been resolved yet. so for as much as there's a dru- beat toward dealing with the threat posed by isis, let's ma'e sure we understand what that h threat is and why exactly it can't be quelled through other less innovative, less intrusive means and then and only then let's have a conversation aboutf how carefully to go to war, so in 25 years from now we talk about something congress could never have contemplated in reaction to one horrific attack. >> thank you both.stephe appreciate it very much.you' stephen vladeck and charles cully stimson. you talked about a twitter

debate. follow cully on twitter. your blog is what? >> just security. >> great. follow them both. thank you, gentlemen. appreciate it. on the next washington journal, an juwe will talk to k baron of census one. here are a few of the

xhunlts we have receixhunlt -- a few of the comments we received from viewers. >> you do a great job with the programming. i think that the people here and the topics are good. what i would like to see is somebody from both sides of the opinion. i know -- i think a lot of people have commented. i think watching the debate between two of the people is so much more informative for the public. you have done it a couple times. it's like, i will go, wow, we're getting both sides. i think that's what is really awesome. you guys are great. but you could be awesome. >> c-span needs to get more liberal-type smart commentators that are familiar with world affairs. one that comes to mind is dr. jeffrey sax. he would contribute to a liberal point of view of our government and the world.

i think he could be a fine contributor on c-span to give it >> i wanted to thank c-span for their balanced coverage and for letting everybody have their say on tv. that's very much appreciated in our democracy. thank you. >> i am so disappointed since you changed the format. i can no longer see who is speaking or what even the topic is without getting out of bed and going up in front of the tv because i can't see it. i'm really, really upset about that. i really do like c-span. >> continue to let us know what you think about the programs you are watching.

the deputy commander of u.s. strategic command talked about nuclear deterrents and how computer security factor into the nuclear defenses. general james kowalski was hosted by the air force association in washington. this is 40 minutes. >> good morning. i want to welcome you to this our next to our final breakfast weapons and missing defense. we are going to have one more with tom dugastina in mid october. we will let you know about that. also i want to thank our friends from ndia and roa and the air force association. my name is peter husey, the host of the series which begins in

april and ends about this time. it is now in its 34th year. also want to let you know that the transcripts from the triad conference last week will be posted probably within the next week. we are now scheduled and have confirmed two additional triad conferences in march of 2015 we will do one in utah in conjunction with hill air force base. and we have now a commitment to do the seventh triad conference here in washington, d.c. the day after afa next year on the 17th of september in the room we are now in. we will have this entire floor. so we will sign up. i'm open to suggestions about speakers as well as sponsors. i want to thank our embassy colleagues here today from great britain, denmark, the federal republic of germany, austria and russia. i want to thank those in

attendance from the united states military. thank you for your service. we are honored today to have the deputy commander of the united states strategic command who took the position in october 2013, general kowalski entered active duty in 1980 through the rotc program at the university of cincinnati. he has held a variety of operational commands including a bomb squadron and an air control wing. his wartime experience is command of the second operations command and command of the 28th bomb wing when they deployed for operation iraqi freedom. from january 2003 to may 2003, general kowalski commanded the 405th air expedition wing where

he led to provide strike, battle management and arrow fuelling operations. previous staff assignments include headquarters, air combat command, headquarters u.s. air force and the joint chiefs of staff. he also served as commander of the air force global strike command. with that, i would like youis.v all welcome our friend and colleague from u.s. strategic command, the deputy commander, lieutenant colonel james kowalski. [ applause ] >> thank you. thanks to all of you for braving the weather and coming out here. i was told it might by a smaller crowd because of the weather. you must have thought admiral haney was coming because the room is pretty full. i have been at strategic command for about a year. in many ways it might fit the stereotype that some of you may have about the command that

began as strategic air command in 1946. i work in a building named after general curtis lamay. outside my window are two missiles. the portraits in the hallway are those of stern air force generals staring down their soviet union. but i discovered that the nuclear mission while clearly front and center as it should be was now just one part of a mosaic that made up strategic deterrents. the other key parts of that picture are space and cyberspace. admiral haney went knew detail on our nuclear mission. i would like to expand that discussion beyond nuclear, talk a little bit about strategic attack, touch on a couple of challenges to our forces, bring space and cyberspace into this

conversation. i will try to keep this as an overview because i want to ensure we have time for questions and some conversation. many of you familiar with strategic command know we have nine responsibilities. i can hardly remember all of them. i have nine brothers and sisters. i can barely remember their names. i'm going to read them here for you, because it is a lot on our plate. we execute operations in nuclear, space, seiber is and global strife. have a lead role in missile defense, intelligence surveillance reconnaissance, combating weapons of mass destruction, electronic warfare and analysis and targeting. most of the attention directed toward strategic command is understandably related to our nuclear mission. but often overlooked are the other mission areas, in particular how having this broad set of global missions under one commander missions that cross geographic and functional

boundaries shape the work that strategic command does today. now as assigned by the president, strategic command's mission is to deter and detect attacks against the united states and our allies and defeat those attacks if deterrence fails. strategic command's specific responsibilitys for nuclear operation, space, cyberspace, wchz mass destruction make deterring strategic attack our number one priority. it's important to note that strategic attack is not limited to nuclear weapons. it can be any attack that does grave damage to our interests or our objectives while nuclear weapons are unique in their real and imagined power, a modern strategic attack could occur through other domains including space or cyberspace. by other means such as chemical, biological or radiological. with our primary folk us on

strategic deterrence, we're sensitive to trends that complicate our ability to field a flexible and ready force. two trends creating risk today are global instability and declining defense spending. whenhaney he gave a concise description of the global environment. more complex and uncertain than at any time in recent history. i think that's a good description of the unease that most senior military leaders are feeling today. i'm not going to rehash in detail the world events of the past year. as all of you have witnessed, it has been a series of headlines that can almost numb us into inaction. north korea threatening to use nuclear weapons. syria using chemical weapons. china laying claim to vast tracks of the south china sea. russia violating treaties and

borders. the so-called islamic state giving vicious video testimony to how horriblebly humans can beha behave. there's no shortage of bad ak actors on the world stage. many are clearly demonstrating the will to disrupt the global order. we also note the number of states making significant investments in strategic nuclear systems, space and counter space capabilities, all the while proliferation of ballistic weapons continues. further serving to increase the risk of nuclear coercion in regional crises. we must be keenly aware of the danger when those with the intent to disrupt the world order are also gaining the strategic capability to exert their will on their neighbors. faced with the growing array of challenges, strategic command must execute current operations

and prioritize for the future. and do both with the flexibility to quickly adapt to new threats and opportunities. but ensuring flexibility through force size, readiness and modernization will be stressed by near and long-term budget cuts and budget uncertainty. while the reduced defense budget is often characterized as a normal post-war budget cycle, easy comparisons to draw downs after world war ii, vietnam or the cold war don't stand up to scrutiny. chief among those difrnnk -- w seeing missions go away. in fact, we must continue to grow in modern mission areas such as cyber, space and missile defense.

while we sigh mmultaneously sus our forces. this budget tension is further complicated by the growing realization that long delay recapitalization of our nuclear forces has created an acquisition battle wave over the next 15 years while we must cope with the inevitable sustainment costs and challenges of aging strategic weapon systems. what we're left with is a gap between declining resources and growing national security requirements. at risk are the very strategic advantages that underpin the freedom of action of our conventional forces that contributes to strategic stability by deterring adversaries and assuring allies and that enable a modern society. let me turn to discussing space and cyberspace. space capabilities and ensuring freedom of action in space are key components of stra teeth iks

deterrences. nations around the global rely on space for military, civil, scientific and economic benefits. space systems provide precise navigation and timing, persistent infrared systems provide early warning of potential threats, radars and tracking networks give time sensitive data that help prevent collisions. data we're now sharing openly with foreign and commercial partners. other space assets give us unique insight to adversary intentions and operations. including terrorist activities. our space situational awareness support our deployed nuclear forces, the national decision making architecture and the geographic combatant commands. we anticipate determined adversaries will challenge us in space and we are alert to the dangers posed as some states aggressively develop counter space capabilities.

we will advocate for the investments to protect our space instra structure and improve its resiliency. these include both active and passive protection measures and designing resiliency and afford built into space system architectures. cyberspace is also a component of strategic deterrences. we have improved our own cyberspace capacity and capability but we're challenged by the pace of the global threat. the scale and sophistication of an increasing number of state and non-state actors test our network defenses daily. we face a broad range of cyberspace threats from state sponsored espionage and offensive military operations to terrorist organizationings and criminals. we're working through challenges, particularly in manpower and training as we build cyber professionals. we will address challenges of recruiting, training and

retaping people, facilities and equipment necessary for successful seib or operations. our plans call for force of over 6,000 highly trained personnel. most of this force will support the geographic combatant commands. the remainder will support national missions. budget stability is needed to achieve this vision. as every training day we lose to fiscal constraints will cause further delays in fielding this force. a unique perspective that strategic command givesous nine missions allow us to develop depth and more importantly to work between and across those mission areas. we're the combatant command who thinks about the next us of space and nuclear, of the strategic relationship between cyber and space, about how our array of global functional mission areas more than just space, cyber and nuclear can be

integrated into a campaign plan to detect and deter every day and to do so in a manner that brings strategic deterrents into our relationships with the geographic commanders. we mature this campaign plan through war games and exercises against a range of potential adversaries to understand the integration of these mission and to improve our relationships with government agencies. we have been able to explore issues such as the unintended consequences of military action, the effects of u.s. conventional superiority might have on adversary escalation calculus and how our deterrent activities in different domains might be useful against a wide range of potential adversaries. in closing, strategic deterrences is provided every day by a safe, secure and effective nuclear force. supported by hardened threat warning systems and nuclear command and control. but we must now acknowledge that

space and cyberspace require the same national attention our nuclear forces have needed in the past. thanks for inviting me and thanks for your intention. i will open it up for questions. [ applause ] >> hi. two questions. one, there has been movement in the house and the senate to create a special fund to pay for the new class of boomer. there's also been talk about the air force wanting a similar mechanism set up for its new missile and bombing programs. do you have an opinion on that? and the second question is, can you characterize the capability of islamic state to carry out chemical and biological weapon a

atta attacks? there's news documents have been discovered on a computer abandoned that detailed their research into risin. they occupy territory into syria where some chemical weapon precursors might be left. >> i should have been writing all of that dourn. okay. first on the budget strategies. frankly, i think -- i can understand the logic why the navy and now the air force might try to look at another mechanism so that we could get some separation between these strategic weapon systems and the standard conventional things that our forces require and not put them in competition with each other. that way it can make it easier to have for the nation to have this discussion about nuclear forces and strategic and nuclear

deterrents. but i don't have an opinion on whether that's the right way to do it or not. but i think it's worth having the discussion about that bow wave that sh coming. we had a recapitalization or large initial capitalization in the early '60s. of that's what we fielded the minuteman force, we retired a number of systems but we brought on -- we had been bringing on b-52s, the polaris submarine. the next recapitalization happened in the early '80s. we went about 20 years. when you add another 20 years, you are talking about just after the 9/11. the next recapitalization of the force never happened. we delayed that for almost another 20 years. we look at the ohio replacement, no submarine has been fielded for as long as the ohio class

submarine will have been fielded. we're in uncharted waters with the submarine. we're in uncharted waters with a lot of our other systems. the minuteman 3 launch facilities. there's a recapitalization that has to happen here. it's pretty clear that the rest of the world continues their modernization and recapitalization. this threat and the need to have this nuclear deterrent is not going away any time soon. i don't think it is contrary to say that we are on a path for a world without nuclear weapons. but at the same time, we must have a force that is safe, secure and effective to achieve that we have to recapitalize this force.

on the question on isis, what we know from having tracked this in the past is that the violent extremist organizations have consistently shown an interest in other means. frankly, just about any means to create havoc and destruction. so i don't think we're particularly surprised by the findings. yeah, i think -- i can't speak on behalf of the intelligence community or the central commander. >> some of the air force leaders have talked about the pentagon possibly contributing more funds to help this recapitalization effort. of the nuclear forces, especially ground-based strategic deterrent, the material solution is identified. could you talk about how you are going to pay for all this and what the strategy is? >> i think the discussions are

ongoing. i can't commend on the strategy or where the department will end up on this. as you know, there have been a couple of reviews that have gone on. there labhas been a lot of conversation about -- we did a fair amount of investment in organizational changes and in focus of our nuclear enterprise over the last six or seven years. but we have not really done is made that fiscal plus up that's required. and i think to some extent our folks are still looking for that financial commitment beyond just the words. it's that gap between what we say and the gap between what we do. >> are you worried some of the other -- >> i'm frankly probably more concerned about the opposite,

that we put money in the nuclear that crowds out some of our other missions. as i spoke to, there is an array of threats. and they range from the conventional all the way up to the high end. and what we have seen that is successful in the deterrence ar arty -- a deterrence architecture, it creates uncertainty on every step in the escalation ladder. so if you can only dominate the high end and you leave a gap there, then power fills the vacuum. >> you talked about the challenges of row krecruiting a retaining cyber experts. how are you meeting the challenges? >> right now we're about a third of the way to that 6,000 number.

we have gone through with budget uncertainty and some other issues we had with sequestration. we have had to do some stopping and starting of training courses as we rolled back on tdys. we think we have it back on track now. and we're climbing back up to the numbers that we need. but we will -- we continue to be concerned about another round of budget crisis and budget uncertainty that then impacts our ability to continue the flow of personnel into the training program. >> following on from that question, one thing we have heard routinely in discussions of cyber over the last few years is that the defense industry has trouble competing with commercial industries to hire the right talent and quite frankly the services have a challenge beyond that.

are there cultural organizational ways approaches to address that problem? >> i'm not sure i captured the problem in terms -- are you talking about cyber? >> cyber, yes. >> yes. that's a good question. i hate to beg off of it. it's probably a question best answered by cyber command. i know that -- i can talk to a few years ago when we worked i was on the joint staff. that was a concern. the services and the department have mechanisms to work through different levels of pay, whether those are re-enlistment bonuses or initial sign-on bonuses. at the end of the day, it continues to be a problem. we expect that it will always be a challenge for us. i think what we do offer in our cyber force is we offer the

unique ability, the unique opportunity to be able to develop and apply those cutting edge skills in the service of your nation. nobody else can really offer that. >> there seems to be a recognition that there's nuclear modernization needed across the navy, the air force and doe. i'm curious -- i know you answered a couple questions on this before. can you do what's needed without an increase to the top line? you talked about the fear that nuclear modernization could crowd out some of the other conventional missions. is there -- do you have to increase the top line defense budget to pay for what's needed?

>> you put me in a box here. that's okay. that is a fair question. the answer is, it requires the possible re-visit of our strategy. but the biggest concern for us is that it requires us to take more risk within the current strategy. and at the end of the day, risk is a probability, is a game of probabilities. if i'm going to take a risk in 20 or 30 different areas, then i have to rely on my ability to perfectly predict the future. secretary gates said before he left office that the department of defense has a perfect record on predicting the future. we always get it wrong. the end of the day, we are going to be taking more risk than clearly the military is comfortable taking, because we aren't going to get it right.

then it becomes where have we taken too much risk or where did events unfold in a manner that our forces or our sustainment or modernization or our support of our people were not structured in a manner to allow us to weather the storm without a rapid refocus of what we are. one of the things that we have been trying to stress is flexibility. flexibility that you get when you have a larger fource, a modern force. that gives you the flexibility, the opportunity to adapt to a rapidly changing environment. what budget reductions do is they require us to become extremely efficient. what that means is we take the flexibility out of the system because we have to figure out exactly what it is we're going to do and then we design ourselves efficiently. that may not always and is not always the most effective force.

>> brad harris. considering the budget constraints from a military perspective, are you more concerned that the many programs will be under funded so we have to buy, for example, less nuclear submarines or that we will end up with less programs? instead of a triad, we only have two systems. or if we cut -- >> you make an assumption i don't make. that sh we'is we are always goi have these levels of funding. there's room to have the discussion about what the nation needs and wants. when you look at defense spending, particularly spending on strategic weapon!vyky

however, right now we spend about 5% of our department of defense budget on strategic systems. with that bow wave it goes up -- i think it's about seven or eight percent. even within the department of defense budget, it will drive hard choices. but it does not appear to me to be unaffordable. from the perspective of the nation, from the perspective of what the strategic deter rents mean and what risk are we willing to take, that is not an

area i'm willing to say that we ought to be taking risk in. >> brian bradley. you mentioned that you were frankly concerned that the nuclear funds could cut into other areas of the larger defense budget. have any areas -- have any current plans been identified as possibilities of scaling back the work from what is -- what was originally planned? >> i'm not aware of where we're at with those discussions. frankly, i think that as we move forward with the recapitalization of the nuclear enterprise and with making sure that we understand what's truly

required out there for sustainment at the say tme time look for ways to do it more effectively. i have spoken in the past about our initiatives with the navy on strategic systems where we are going to be able to share a lot of components. we're looking at other ways to save costs in the future related to the recapitalization of the minuteman-3 system. as we go down that path, what we have to keep in mind is that as i said before, that deterrence is this ladder. we have to be careful about the tradeoffs that we make. there are always tradeoff within the department. i can't get into any specific ones because we're just not revealing those plans yet. >> there have been proposals through companies, to cult the

submarine force from 12 to eight and delay the strategic bomber until the mid '20s, another ten years. could you address the consequences of if we hypothetically did this what would be the impact on our deterrent capability? >> well -- again, these are things that folks have brought up and are part of the conversation. we are already reducing the force of=òv submarines to 12 an reducing the number of missile tubes on each one of those submarines to 16. so we're sizing this force in a very constrained manner, that is compliant with the new start treaty and compliant with the guidance that we have under the new presidential guidance and, frankly, as we go forward and look at our ability to continue to deter adversaries out there

and long-term into the future. going off of that number requires assumptions that frankly we can't make in terms of our ability to keep a ready force at sea. that impact means that u.s. strategic command supports a force of 12 ssbns in the future. and the bomber issue, right now we're satisfied that the air force has the bomber program on track. it will clearly come under more scrutiny as its share of the budget continues to grow. the bomber is interesting because it's brought up in perspective of the nuclear conversation and this conversation about strategic deterrents. the bomber is going to be critical to our geographic commanders, even in just a conventional role because of its ability to respond very quickly to a crisis.

i'm a perfect communicator, and i have resolved all the issues. >> speaking of the long-range strike bomber, there was a piece yesterday, maybe you saw it, about the pearl perils of keepi many details secret that it could jeopardize its viability if it does come into competition with other air programs. can you talk about that? did you see the article? >> no. but i am familiar with the line of reasons. while there may be an appetite for more information, at the end of the day i think what is publically available on the bomber is sufficient. and i don't think we need to be

going into more details on a program of that importance and that level of classification. >> would you be able to expand on this strategic deterrent and what you look at as you look to replace the minuteman missile> the first work of the analysis of alternatives was completed by the air force. and what they are looking at is a hybrid -- a system that will fundamentally be a land-based system the way the current minuteman-3 is today.

what we have today is -- provides a responsiveness and provides strategic stability within the constraints of the new startuthaç treaty. we have 450 hardened disbursed silos and 45 launch control centers. that presents an adversary with a problem. when i say we don't have the fear today that we had in the cold war of a bolt out of the blue first strike, one reason is because of that robust force out there that requires an adversary -- they would have to commit most of their arsenal. that he would leave them vulnerable. i think that's a good path to proceed near term. i think long-term, how do you deal with uncertainty? (é#p!le to do is develop a system that would give us an option later on to go back and re-visit what is the right basing most and do we

need to move this missile to another basing mode? can we do that and how do we do that? certainly with the system we have today, you can't do that. so if we need to replace the system, we should probably build into it the flexibility to do some other things in the future that the current minuteman can't. there is clearly going to have to be some more studies and analysis done. while the concrete, i think, in the launch facilities and the launch control centers is pretty sound, the equipment in there is not. clearly needs to be replaced. that's been identified the. the communications systems need to be upgraded. the computers, all of that needs to be rethought. especially if we want to build in the flexibility in the future, we need to do this from the ground up. so i think those are the things that global strike command and the air force are looking at as they look downstream at what

replaces minuteman-3. >> you are talking about a one for one module replacement as opposed to keeping the minuteman sustainable? >> yes. i think that we're on, and, again, all of this has not been, we've not completed all of the analysis to give us exactly the path to go. the idea is to continue to use those current launch facilities and launch control centers. but this is an opportunity to revisit our concept of operations, how we communicate, what kind of flexibility we build into it and a time to modernize. so how, what is the right way to do it. and then how do you implement that for all things that need to be thought about as we go forward here. but clearly, it, the land-based component of our tri-add needs

to be viable. we can keep the minuteman three up to 2030 and after that it becomes problematic. you've seen some of the reporting up to this point on how we do that operation out there. we have a lot of aggressive, young, committed people and we put them into pretty old facilities. and it's not just the human element, but it reflects on our ch commitment to their mission when we don't make the investments that are clearly necessary. >> general, talk about the growing threats to our space systems. could you speak about how that threat affects the rest of the

missionaries of strategy command? >> well, your question pretty much captured all of our concerns, because any threat to our space systems. and frankly, we've taken our ability to operate in space for granted for a long time. but any threat to those systems can have an impact across our force, from the high-end strategic as it could affect our missile warning systems. our nuclear command and control systems, all the way down to our ability to do precision navigation and timing. not only do we in the military rely on our gps constellation, all of you rely on that gps constellation. the u.s. banking system relies on the timing of that gps constellation system. so there are so many places that just underpin modern society, both here and globally, that put that at risk implies a strategic

impact of that system, of all the systems. that's why we're continuing to work with other nations. that's why we're continuing to work within the current budget as we look at future architectures, and as we look at ways to manage the resilience of the system. and when you have states that continue to take actions that are demonstrably destabilizing in space, for instance, the chinese a-sap test in july, that will continue to concern us. >> i want to thank you for an extraordinarily well-done presentation and certainly during the q&a you gave us an a yes n enormous amount of information. thank you, and come again. [ applause ] c-span, campaign 2014 debate

coverage continues friday afternoon at 2:00. the oregon governor's debate between john kittshauber and the republican. and sunday, the iowa senate deba debate. more than 100 debates for the control of congress. the rise of isis poses unique diplomatic and military challenges to nato ally turkey. on wednesday, georgetown university hosted a discussion on turkey's role in combatting isis. this is just under two hours. good afternoon. welcome to the institute for turkish studies. i would like to welcome you to a timely event.

the obama administration has been trying to build a coalition in its fight against the islamic state and turkey's expected to play an important role in there. and if you're following the news, prime minister erdogan just yesterday signaled that turkey might become part of the military coalition. so now there's a huge debate on what exactly turkey will do. so we have a great panel today, and without further ado, i would like to turn it over the my colleague, the director of the institute for turkish studies at georgetown university. again, thank you all for coming and welcome. [ applause ] >> good afternoon, everybody. i won't be long either. i would like to turn over the floor as quickly as possible. i'm the director of the institute of turkish studies which is based here and once again thanks for making the time to attend this critical panel.

i should just like to say that this is a continuity of an effort. we've had a long and fruitful relationship of putting together what we think to be are very significant and worthwhile events to highlight some interesting developments within our immediate region but specifically the country of turkey. so today we have what we think to be a very poignant title referred to as turkey, isis, and the middle east. it is a timely topic with the spread of the isis threat. i think some of the questions we'll explore from the panel today will try and shed light

on some of the most urgent questions that have been asked in capitals of europe but more specifically the capital of the united states, washington, d.c., here. i think each person is very qualified to speak from a very different perspective, hence why we are very grateful for having them for making their time. what i will briefly do is briefly read the bio of each speaker as they come up to speak as opposed to rushing them up all at the same time. first up we're privileged to host dr. denise napoli from the institute of steej ix studies at the national defense ministry. she's researched extensively in iraq, turkey, and syria.r$dzw the kurdish quasi-state in post gulf war iraq. and the kurds and state.

evolving national identity in turkey and iran. each speaker will have approximately 12 minutes after which time we'll give you ample time to address questions to the panel. thank you very much. dr. napoli. >> i'd like to thank the middle east institute and the turkish studies association here at georgetown. just a disclaimer. anything i say is my own views and not that of the u.s. government, the department of defense, or the national defense university. as we look at -- what i want to look at here or what i was asked to take a peek at is what or how can we interpret some of these shifting alliances that are emerging from this isis insurgency, if you will, between turkey, the kurds in iraq and the pkk and the syrian kurds.

what has happened since the, as we call it the takeover of mosul on june 2014 has been a realigning, at least what it appears to be, a realigning of some of these rival kurdish groups such as the kurdistan regional governments and the pkk and i say slash pyd which is the syrian arm of this group, into some type of kurd earn arrayance to fight isis. should we be concerned about this? is this something significant that is going to challenge the turkish relationship with the krg? what does this mean in terms of regional stability? is this going to enhance the pkk or the pyd's influence in the rae jo region? i don't think so. and i'm also pretty skeptical about how far this so-called

alliance can go. but nonetheless, let's look at what has happened. what has happened even before june. because it was something more subtle than just isis taking over mosul. you have very strong turkey, kurdish, iraqi relations that have evolved more significantly since 2008, grounded in energy sector, relations, commercial ties and security issues. one of the key components of this, and this was also a personal relationship. it was a barzani/president erdogan tie. not only in the pkk but pushing the ties. and it would help barzani be the king of all the kurds, which is part of his dreams. that was one part of it, but the other part is there were turkey/pkk relations. and they were to help the peace process which still