congress. principal drafter james madison, ten years after the constitution was final, wrote a letter to jefferson and said, our constitution supposed what the history of all governments demonstrates, that's it's the executive that's the branch most interested in war and most prone to it. it's for this reason that we have put the question of war in the legislative branch. another virginian, one of our first presidents, thomas jefferson was confronted with a war similar to what we're dealing with now, quasi terrorist, grappled with what congress said, what the constitution said about the allocation powers. jefferson knew as president and commander in chief, i can defend the nation immediately. as our ships were being attacked, he could tell the commanders of the ships, you have to defend yourselves. he didn't need congress for that. but at some point he decided, you know what?

defending every attack doesn't seem smart. can't we go on offense? and he said, when i go beyond the line of defense, i can't do that without the sanction of congress. so it was very clear initially from the beginning that a president could defend against imminent attack without congress, although you should get congress on board later. congress though had to declare war, any going on offense against anyone other than imminent defense, took a congressional declaration. that was the clear understanding. but we have gotten it wrong virtually sense the ink was dry. it doesn't matter whether presidents or congresss or republican or democrat or wig or federalist, we have gotten it wrong. we have gotten it wrong because madison was half right but he want cynical enough. madison described the provision of the war powers provisions as a check against executive power. the branch most prone po war, most interested in it. we put it in the legislative branch. he saw monarchs and executives

overreach. war is unpopular. people will get killed. my constituents may not like it. well, maybe if the president can initiate and if it works out well, we were with you all the time, if it works out poorly, mr. president, how dare you, i can't believe you did this without coming to congress. from the beginning there has been a tendency toward congressional abdication. it's that that is more explanatory of our dilemma that executive overreach. there's a pathology between executive overreach and congressional abdication that's put us in a situation where presidents like president obama can go all the way back are more prone to start things without congress. so one value is ought to get the constitutional -- we ought to get our decision making back so that it respects the allocation of powers that was a revolutionary thing when it was done and that still is, that war

shouldn't be for the monarch or executive, it should be for legislative. the second thing is the underlying value. this is what matters to me. if we don't do it the way the framers intended, if we allow war to begin by a president with a congress that stands back and says, we don't want to get involved, there's a midterm coming up, we might make people mad, then we ask people to risk their lives. we're asking people to risk their lives every day. we had the first combat death against isil, a corporal -- marine corporal from indiana killed in an incident supporting the air strike campaign on the 2nd of october. we're asking people to risk their lives or risk injury or risk capture or risk the mental stress of seeing these things happen to their colleagues or the mental stress of seeing thee things happen to civilians that is kind of a part of the damage in war.

how dare we ask people to risk that if we're not willing to do our job to have a debate in front of the american public and then put our thumb print on the mission and say this is in the national interest? we're afraid of having that debate. we don't want to say it's in the national interest but still go risk your life. that seems to be the height of public immorality. what could you do -- bribery is bad, other things are bad. that's what's at stake. when you don't have congress have the debate, you not only violate the constitution, but you force people to risk their lives without a consensus that the mission is in the national interest. finally, what should he would do? very quickly. i propose three things. first, we have to have a legal authorization to cover this current military mission against isil because in my view, from about mid august to now, there has not been legal authority that is sufficient to authorize this mission.

when the president started air strikes on august 8, there was a credible claim that isil's momentum could jeopardize embassy personnel. so he was defending the united states as presidents can do without coming to congress. but by mid august, we were engaged in air strikes to retain a dam that posed no threat, that posed n ed no threat to the uni states. we were helping rescue refugees, but there was no threat to american interests. so from that time, we have been engaged as the president said, we have gone on offense against isil, where he in a war against isil, we have been engaged in a war that is not about imminent defense of the united states without legal authority. the president's article two powers as commander in chief are as jefferson said, about defending against imminent threat. where we are beyond that. i view the argument that the '01

or '02 authorization covers this as ridiculous. this mission against isil is not covered by the wording of those authorizations. it's not covered by the intent of those authorizations. it's not covered by what members of congress thought when they voted for these authorizations. maybe most importantly, it's not covered by what president obama has said about the authorizations. in may of 2013, he said the 2001 aumf authorization should be narrow and repealed, not expanded. he sent witnesses to testify before us in the senate about the 2002 iraq authorization and said it was obsolete and it was time to repeal it. in my view, there's currently no legal authority to support the action against isil unless and until congress comes in and has the debate and votes. that's why i introduced a resolution in the short-term we should deal with it right away. second, we do need to deal with the 2001 authorization, because

that continues to be out there. we could deal with it together with the anti-isil authorization or separately. but congress in '01 pass aid brief authorization without a geographic limitation. even the targets that were subject to the authorization are now very broad, multiple theeltetheel theaters of war. administration officials have said they think the war authorized by the 2001 authorization will go on for another 25 or 30 years. that is unacceptable. and we should be having a bedate to narrow that authorization. especially since members of congress, in 2001, rejected the bush administration's attempt to have a broader authorization. the bush administration came to congress and said, give us the authorization to take essentially pre-emptive action

against terrorist groups before they hurt it. congress rejected that. what both administrations have expand the authorization passed to basically be what congress rejected in '01. the last thing i think we should do -- i have introduced legislation with senator mccain do this -- is go back into the war powers resolution of 1973 and come up weapon a bert ptter process for this discussion that will take place between congress and the president. aproce ap a process that respects both sides. there's a group at the university of millof virginia, concluded there has never been an era where we got this right. we changed the process. i'm under no illusion that a better process will make this easy. but not having a process takes hard decisions and makes them harder. so senator mccain and i have a bill to -- the war powers

consultation act of 2014 that tries to take the dialogue process, define what is a war in the 21st century that would trigger consultation and voting, cyber attacks, drones, non-state actors, what is a war. second defines what consultation is so that a president can't say i consulted with congress when he calls one person. and third, defines what voting requirements would be. so the congress would have to be on the board and do their job. these are the three things we're working on. we do need, as jane said, to do this right now in the lame-duck. there's no reason to extend this questionable war for five or six months before congress gets around to it. i'm excited we have our first meeting in the foreign relations committee today. i look forward to working with my colleagues. thank you. [ applause ] >> it's an honor to be on the stage today. jack goldsmith, professor harvard, senior fellow, which

means he has two decent educational institutions covered and jane, it's great to see jane. we see each other in the cnn green room but in the field as well. we were in ukraine for elections. we will have that. i wonder if i would begin with you. this is an issue that splits both parties. you see the president now oddly presenting this that he wants to pursue a new aumf, knowing that there's some in the gop that might be more forward leaning than his own party. i wonder if we can look at this issue as one where there's a potential for bipartisan agreement, to give definition whether before or ideally as you have said during the lame-duck session but perhaps after. >> i look at the split not as a negative but positive. so many things on the hill now

get divided. this is not partisan. on foreign relations committee one i my hardest votes was whether to authorize use of military force in syria to punish use of chemical weapons against civilians. it was a 10-8 vote but not part son. it was divided because it was hard. but it was nonpartisan because it didn't break down along part son lines. there are republicans who do not like the notion of executive power exercise muscularly by this president or other presidents who i think would resonate with this. there are democrats of a variety of the big tent that we have in the democratic party who feel -- they may have different feelings about the isil mission itself and the parameters of it, but they do feel strongly they don't want to see that power purely to an executive. i think that this is -- senator corker who i work closely with, i know this has been a passion of his as well. i don't see it as a partisan

issue. i think that creates some opportunity for finding a path forward. there was are specifics that are important specifics where there are some partisan differences. you want to authorize ground troops or prohibit ground troops? what should the length of a sunset provision be? there's dinkfferences. there are plenty who worry about presidential unilateral power. >> professor gold smith, there have been 3,200 strike missions. you have the president authorizing with this latest 1,500, up to 2,900 troops. that sounds like a war to me. isn't this debate arguably too late? by doing this now, is this mostly about the president's legacy? does it then set a precedent for our presidents? weigh in on how important it is to act even though the war is already under way.

in you get through the lame-duck session, you get into the new year, we're talking six, 12 months before you have an actual vote on this. >> right. first of all, thank you for inviting me here today. it's an honor to be on this panel. i don't think it's too late. it's not too late. it can happen. it would be very important for the president to go to congress and for congress to give him the authorization not just to use force against the islamic state but also as senator kaine to update the 2001 authorization and to give that contemporary approval and legitimacy and to figure out some of the complicated issues that have arisen in the last 12 years. >> do those necessarily come together that you get a new authorization, you revise the 2001 or is that -- >> they can come together. that's a matter of how politics work and what the sequencing is. it might be easier to do it one way or the other. i think they both should be done, both the isil authorization and updating the 2001 authorization.

the president last week basically suggested that they both should be done. it would be extraordinarily important to do so for all the reasons senator kaine said. as for the president's legacy, i believe it's in his interest to see that this happens. for a long time until the rise of the islamic state one got the impression that the obama administration wanted to declare the war against terrorists over with. so for a long time, they resi resisted going to congress. the president also has kind of by accident developed the most extro aerdly aggressive war powers legacy. he used force in humanitarian context that has never been done before. he has done things that have gutted the central provisions of the war powers resolution. he extended the 2001 aumf when he said he wanted to contract it. all of those things will be on his record and all of it can be cleaned up for his legacy if we

can work out these issues. >> retroactively? >> he will leave on a high note for him. >> jane, you know washington, to say the least, handicapped this for us. senator kaine laid out an ambitious agenda. but just for a moment, handicap the chances in this congress with a hard-fought 2016 presidential election coming up that you can get real progress on this issue, resolution on this issue. >> well, i think this was an ugly election. no one has missed that. control changed hands in the senate. but it didn't change hands because people decided the other team was great and democratic team was bad. they decided everybody was bad and congress does nothing. and i think this was in many ways a referendum on the incumbents in congress.

now we have a? what new congress and a new team in control. but i think this congress is on trial. the terrorists aren't going to check party registrations before they blow us up. they aren't going to figure out which hat are you wearing. i have no idea which hat. you are wearing a government hat. that's why you are here. so is everybody on this panel. i hope that every editorial board in the country starts writing about the awol congress, the duck and blame congress. i think this has to be item number one. people are dieing there. there hasn't been a public debate. the place the public can debate this is through congress. we spent $1 billion. i understand that's chump change these days. but a billion over the next month is going to be more billions. there may be more deaths. there may be turns and twists here that we can't imagine.

i just -- it's not just -- i actually agree with you, tim, that this is immoral. but i also think it is dumb and unwise politics for both parties. they better get at it. >> you think they will? they better. but will they? >> sort of. i mean it starts now. it will depend on how -- what the public says, too. that's why country, digital campaign, editorials, come on. wake folks up. this is day one. here is tim kaine on hour one of day one down here doing the right thing, which is calling for action. >> do you see the partners on the other side of the aisle, particularly as we have the leadership change, corker moving into a leadership role, mccain, they have very public views on this as well. but do you see with that leadership -- there's a leadership question in congress. can the leadership bring their own party to the table on both sides? do you think you have the

partners present in congress to work together and move forward? >> i'm still a new guy. i think we do. if the president had really pushed congress to have this debate and vote before we went into recess, he would have gotten authorization. what's my evidence for that? well, i sat around the table at the foreign relations committee when we debated -- when we met with secretary hagel and secretary kerry. the single hardest piece against eisil that the president proposd was arming and training of the syrian army. that was the most con trtrovers. congress voted for that in connection with the continuing resolution. the vote was two-thirds, one-thirds. and i watched my colleagues around the foreign relations committee table, 18 of them -- i was counting based on the discussion who would likely vote yes on an authorization right

now. it was a bert margin than 10-8. that was as of september 13 or 14. we will see come november what folks think. but i think actually if the president had pushed the authorization at that time, he would have gotten it. it's more complicated now after the midterms. i do see partners there on all three of the -- the immediate-term to the long-term, i see partners on both sides. >> good to hear. >> i can say one thing about the duck and blame congress and how the president could have gotten authorization before the midterms? if you look back at every authorization of force, every single one, every major one, they only -- there have been 10 or 12, they came about because the president insisted on t. it's hard for congress to do this on its own. president obama has gone from saying i welcome it to saying i will work with congress. if he set up a draft authorization and said i want this in a month, that would get the job done. the question is going to be if he doesn't make that move whether congress can do it on its own. >> boehner wants the president

to draft it. >> i completely agree with this. this works so much better when the president sends up the draft authorization. it works so much better. because if he doesn't, i don't need you but i welcome you. then you have six different authorizations put in. i put one in with basic authorization, similar limitations but five others are floating around. the better thing is for the president to send up a draft and for us to have hearings and pepper the administration witnesses with questions and refine it. that's what we did with syria. they sent up one vision and they got a different one. they started with a whitehouse version. that's the best way to -- >> it might help if the leadership on a bipartisan basis asked the president to do this. this is a big deal. >> they asked the president not to do it. >> well, i think before the midterms they asked him not to do it. we're now after the midterms. he is doing what they asked. they wanted him to ask. i was part of preconversation on this.

they wanted him to ask. he has asked. now they should ask him to send up a bill. hopefully that will be prepared by a squad of outstanding lawyers like jeff smith and jack goldsmith and others and it will come up for congressional consideration, possibly base on the six that have been introduced, certainly including yours. >> i would bet -- i don't know this for a fact. i would bet that as senator menendez is taking this in, he is talking to the administration, here are three versions, what do you think? one from a, one from b, one from c. i'm sure they are trying to do a frankenstein and take the best from each. >> let's not spook it. but let's invite comments by republicans. let's not make this part son in any way. >> the war against isis, isil is the biggest new war. there's still lots of troops on the ground in afghanistan but it's not the only one. drone strikes in pakistan, yemen and somalia.

we had military forces around nigeria. there are a lot of places where the u.s. is killing people right now. professor goldsmith, this would deal with the isis issue. do you need other authorizations for these other -- they are called pinpoint but they are extensive actions. >> the operations in yemen and somalia and pakistan and afghanistan, those are all premised on the 2001 aumf or a combination and the president's article two powers. for all of the reasons we stated, both in terms of refreshing the authorities, having the public debate about whether we should do those things and also i believe for putting procedural requirements on the president to -- so can he tell the american people exactly who are we at war with in all these places and where. it's remarkable that i testified at the senate arms services committee last year on this issue. it was remarkable how little the

members of the senate armed services committee knew where we were fighting and against whom. it's a remarkable thing. >> visited the war zones. >> they don't know where it's going on. >> let me add one thing. on the ground in syria, there's at least one more terror group. if we're now authorizing war in syria, you can't just say isil is the entire game. there may well be others. but i think people are looking for a strategy, an overarching strategy. not this group over here and some group over there. how are we going to win may be an overstatement. how are we going to win an argument with some kid trying to decide whether to strap on a suicide vest? how are we going to win that argument? part of it is kin etic. but that's not all of it. no military commander thinks we can win kin etically. we have to have a narrative here

about what we stand for and what we're trying to achieve that respects the interests of those on the ground other than those involved in terror groups and empowers them, because otherwise that argument won't be won to step up. so we need a strategy for that. and i think that strategy, with all respect, ought to be part of the conversation with congress and in which the american people participate. >> the numbers indicate we're losing that part of the battle. the flow of foreign fight serz keeping up and there's an argument to say the u.s. led air campaign will increase that as a recruiting tool. >> i think the way jane put it, it's winning the conflict but it's also winning the argument. there's a bigger picture here that involves diplomacy and aid and the only way you are going to win -- i view in the cold war was simple. two competing power theories. now, there's at least three. there's the awe thor tearian,

liberal and the sectarian jihad madle. those are the competing philosophies of power that are in the world right now. we all have a huge stake in wanting these small liberal democratic argument to be the victor. >> this war is being waged on social media. the most modern communication techniques to take us back to the seventh century. go figure. we have to wage it back on social media. >> they are good at it. you see the video very highly produced. they know their audience well and it works because you are getting folks possibly the shooter in ottawa or in new york or the teenage girls in colorado. one thing i want to get to audience questions. but jane, you brought up something the old enemy in syria is assad. we used to talk about his days

are numbered. will an aumf -- i'm curious what the others think -- this gets to your point, what is the strategy? is it about them? do you pivot to taking down the assad regime? do we deal with that issue now? is that down the road? >> i will say, i don't think we will deal with it, because i don't think -- i don't think official policy of the u.s. any longer will be regime change in a sovereign nation. i don't think that should be part of our official policy. people say that they don't like that the president set a red line and didn't honor it. i think he did what he said he would do with respect to the red line on chemical weapons. if you use them, we will take action. we did. there was a diplomatic follow off. the stockpile has been destroyed. the president did what he said he would do. what the president should not have said -- i don't think we should be in the business of saying assad must go or others must go. we don't set the timetable for change in regime in other nations. we have been bad at it when we tried. we should step back from

thinking we should set it. these crimes are horrible. the coming, chemical weapons, they violated international protocols but we don't set the timetable of a regime change for another nation. we should be out of the business. so i don't think a front-on we got to change assad out should be part of this authorization. >> love to go to the audience now and take moderator privilege if you would like, go to the front row, jeff smith first if you want to quiz the audience. >> we need a mike. >> for our viewers at c-span. >> first of all, thank you for organizing this. it's terrific. a lot of great ideas have surfaced in this. it's an enormously complicated subject. i think we do need to decide what the strategy is and that's unclear. that's the president's

responsibility. secondly, there's an additional audience here. that is our enemies and our allies. >> that's true. >> what we do in this legislation will be followed very closely. we will only win this war written broadly against islamic terrorism with allies. and with reform within the islamic world. and if they know that this nation is not committed to a long-term commitment, they're not going to participate, our allies are going to say, you go ahead and we will watch. i think it's important that we signal to the world as well as to our own people and to the men and women who fight it that this is a long-term commitment of the united states and we're in it, we're going to pay for it. >> responses? >> agree. >> absolutely. >> in the fourth row here. >> thank you for holding this thing.

question, how detailed should the congressional authorization be? should you just support going to war conflict, or are you going to suggest things like tactical questions, no boots on the ground, other conditions, use of certain kinds of weapons? secondly, what about a tax increase to pay for it? >> your proposal has a time limit and prohibition on ground troops. >> i drafted an authorization. i don't feel pride of ownership in the pieces. i put everything in for a reason but suggest to debate. my authorization basically tracks the president's four point mission from the september 10 speech. the non-con electtroversial. point two, counterterrorism against isil leadership. there was news over the weekend that may prove beneficial. air strike campaign in iraq and

syria. four, the arming and training and equipping of groups in the area. so i say let's do those four things. but i put limitations in. sunset. nothing magic about the year but there ought to be a report back and a reauthorization provision. i put in a limitation on no ground troops except in specified circumstances. i did that for the reason that was just mentioned. there's no amount of american ground troops that will win this war in iraq and syria if the ground fourss from the region aren't willing to stand up against the extremism from the region. if they are willing to stand ep, then we should provide support that an air strike campaign, counterterrori counterterrorism, we should provide that support. if they're not willing to do it, i don't think there's a successful american ground mission in there. then just quickly, the other two authorizations -- limitations i put in is repeal the iraq '02 authorization so that we don't

have dueling authorizations in the same real estate. and number four, narrowly describe who the target is. because the use of the associated forces doctrine as part of the aumf has evolved to we can take military action against any group connected with al qaeda or associated so long as they intend action against the u.s. or a coalition party. there were 59 coalition partners. let's try to be specific about who the target is. those are the limitations i put in. i think they are controversial. sunset and no ground troops and the definition of associated forces is controversial. we have to hammer those out. >> i want to ask in materials of definition. there's been a lot of parsing of words by the administration on what is a war. it was not a war initially. what is combat? what are ground troop ss? general dempsey has not taken off the table an option the president has which is forward ground controllers. is a forward ground controller a ground troop? >> well, i did put into my

authorization some -- to the extent you need ground troops to carry out the counterterrorism portion of the mission, fine. >> it's a dangerous job. >> to the extent you need ground troops to rescue american persons, you got to do that. there are circumstances under which ground troops would be used. overall, general dempsey while he said i'm not going to take off the table remember menning ground troops, he also made pretty clear in his testimony that we are not going to win this in the sense that jane mentioned. we're not going to win this with american ground troops needing to pick up the region won't do to police the extremism in the region. >> let's be clear. first of all, everybody who flies an airplane or pelly c li is wearing a boot. in a thing crashes, there's a rescue mission. they will wear combat boots. zero boots is not an option. but the other part that was question was about pay force.

we're up to a billion. we're going higher. i was part of a group of trouble makers during my 100 years in congress arguing that we should put our wars on budget. yes, there are emergency expenses. but they don't last for 13 years. we're going to have to pay for this and not just hopefully with the lives of the 0.1% who sign up to serve and god bless them. but all of us are going to pay with tax dollars. there has to be a debate about the cost of war. and we have to step up and budget for it. >> i want to -- as a follow-up, i want to ask you professor goldsmith, is there a legal definition to a combat force? the reason i ask that is because, as again dempsey has taken out the large ground force but he kept open the idea of a forward ground controller who is in danger. the president's plan puts u.s.

advisers outside of baghdad and irb irbil, but at several sites around the country which are not front lines but closer to combat and way combat is today in iraq, that could be a suicide truck bomber in the front gate of a brigade headquarters. again, when i talk to administration officials i feel like i'm being snowed on the definition. is there a legal definition. >> there's not a well-specified definition. there are various troops on the ground now. one way of getting at it might be to -- to focus on hostilities. you can borrow language there, although it's fraught from the war powers resolution. hostilities and practice has been defined of you are in hostilities if you are in a situation basically where the troops are in danger of being attacked or engaging in a military operation. so you might be able to get at

this by a definition not of troops on the ground but rather what types of activities can they engage in. there's no subtle definition that i know of. >> if you fly a helicopter or plane, you can get hurt, shot at. >> you certainly can. it's -- to put it mildly, it's a flexible test. >> we know they have shoulder-fire ed missiles. >> you said that the regime change should not be and will not be an official policy of the united states. but you are -- you have this program of equipping and helping the opposition. what are you helping them to do since their official line is to change the regime? thank you. >> great question. we got into that in a significant way at the last foreign relations committee meeting we had in september. the question is, could we provide arms to organizations

that we fight isil that wouldn't also be focused on fighting the assad regime? we're talking about syria now, obviously. that's a tough one. that's a tough tough one. i think we want to make sure that the primary mission of folks that we're providing assistance to once they are vetted is the battle against isil. but we -- i think it would be unrealistic to expect that they would suddenly decide that they are not focused on assad. in my view, the syrian part of this operation is as combi indicated as the iraq side is. the syrian part is much more complicated. and i would actually suspect that if there's an authorization, if congress embraces this authorization against isil, you will probably see this mission evolve -- when the u.s. went into world war ii, we didn't just invade germany. we went to north africa, italy, france. you are will iraq and attempting to stabilize the situation and

then attempt to stabilize the border between iraq and syria and then the border between syria and jordan, turkey, iraq and lebanon. at some point, there will be an opening to figure out what is the right path forward in syria that can lead hopefully to an end of the civil war. but the syrian side of this is much more complicated. i acknowledge the question you raise. it's not easy to separate out the motives. >> don't forget equip. >> and libya. they have a presence in libya as well. >> in the back for fairness. >> thank you. i would just like to ask a question about the precedent that's being set with either executive overreach into the war powers authority or congressional abdication. do you see this as a growing

trend? if so, what are the consequences? would you argue that the united states, either the president or congress, is acting unlawfully? if the two of you could answer, mr. goldsmith and senator kaine. >> in terms of the precedence, the president has been stretching them. he has been stretching it on using his own article two authority. not when he acts in self-defense of the united states but when he is engaged in pure humanitarian interventions in iraq, whatever you think of those, whether good or bad, moral or whatever, serious question of the legality. the president has pushed those beyond where they have gone before. he certainly stretched the 2001 aumf beyond where it had been before to extend it to the islamic state. very controversial.

he has stretched in terms of non-compliance with the war powers resolution. not in this context as much as he did in libya. whether he is acting unlawfully, this is a mushy area of law in article 2 to the extent he engaged in self-defense, i wouldn't say that he is acting strictly unlawfully. i think he's actually imprudently and not consistent with constitutional values or what he said he wanted to do in the past. it's worse for all the reasons senator kaine said. >> i don't disagree with what jack said except i would put more of the blame on congress than the whitehouse. >> to be clear -- excuse me. i'm with you on that. >> i think the congressional abdication mentality on this and on so many other issues is so massive right now that you -- think about this one. you have part of congress suing the president.

we don't want you to use executive power. but mr. president, whatever you do, do not bring to us any vote about a war before the midterm elections. the very people that are suing the president over being too executive are telling him, be an executive on this and we will not challenge you. i view this as fundamentally the article one branch not doing what it is supposed to do. and then abdication, let me lay out what i think the big picture problem is. here is how war has evolved in this country. you can start it without congress. you can fund it on the credit card. even if vietnam as unpopular as it was. we taxed ourselves to pay for it. now iraq and afghanistan on the credit card. the decision makers kids are not likely to serve, at least the kids if they were male were likely to serve. to the extent its contractors.

no vote, on the credit card, your kids don't have to serve, we can get contractors to do it. together -- come together to suggest a grave danger that with are outsourcing the moral responsibility of sober decision making that the framers talked about when they set up the constitution the way they did. >> to add to that, without a debate on a strategy for all this, i would say we're putting ourselves more at risk. >> you might say an evolving strategy, right? >> yeah. just over on the side here. >> thanks. senator, i wanted to ask you, the responsibilities more on congress, whatever. let's say nothing happens for x period of months. at what point do you think if you think this is both illegal and immoral right now, does the operation have to stop, or is that completely unrealistic? how do you see this interfacing with are democrats going to be

obstructionist against the gop senate. does this come into play against immigration and whatever policies? >> latter question. i don't see that happening. i may be naive. i don't see it, well, let's see, question get an edge on an authorization by trading it off against immigration. i think and i hope what jane is encouraged editorial pages and others are banging on us to act. but look, if congress doesn't act at some point there are going to be those of us introducing resolutions of disapproval and stop a war from going on, absolutely. absolutely. because i do think as jack indicated, i do think this is -- this can be fixed. the president i think when he started on august 8, he had a good faith defense but then it evolved. now we're here. we got to have this discussion. but if congress does not do what it needs to do, i think congress

has to try to reign in the precedent from being the bad precedent of unilateral presidential action. >> let me add one more thing we haven't mentioned. that is sequestration. congress ducked the budget fight and imposed this straight jacket that nobody thought would actually happen. it's here. both on defense and non-defense spending. there's no budget that's being debated for these expenses. they come out of sort of a general account called oco. we're going to be hollowing our our military capability if it surged in this direction. i'm not sure whether that's good or bad, but we're not talking -- we're not debating it. what if something else happens in ukraine, china. >> ebola, look at what else is popping up. >> how are we going to pay for that? this is irresponsible.

>> i wanted to get back to the question of long-term strategy, not just against isil but terrorism in general. i worry about the language we use sometimes in calling it a war or terror. obviously, isil is an actual war. but terrorism is an ongoing conflict. it's a state of mind. there's so much psychology involved. you have senior officials saying that the drone strikes are a game of whack a mole and they keep coming. every time i fire a missile into a country, people hate you. then more keep joining. it's hard to discern cause and affect. how much of the current terrorists who are part of isil have been incentivized to do that because of our wars in iraq and afghanistan? i really appreciated the mr. y article that the wilson center put out. i was wondering if you could talk about that. what's our long-term strategy? what's our narrative? what's our effort to build, not

just destroy? >> if i could say a couple things. that's what we need a public debate for. i don't think we will debate it in the next ten minutes here. the war on terror was a misnomer. president obama changed that after he became president. he started to call it the war on al qaeda. it's the war on more groups. it's not a defined enemy. it's a tactic that's in overuse at the moment. that would be one point. on the drone strike issue, you are right. to some extent, there has been what an israeli strategyist calls the boomerang affect. however, those drone strikes -- i know about this. i still know a lot about this. i'm on a few advisory boards that are relevant to this. are highly targeted. we have taken out some real bad guys with drones. i would argue they have to be part of our tool kit. but again we have to explain the whole thing in a way that not

just americans -- tim was right about this. but our enemies and our friends out there can understand. so that our intentions are clear. we're not building more enemies. it was don rumsfeld who said are we taking out more than a rising up against us? it's a question mark. it has to be debated. >> i don't think -- i think we have been doing this for 13 years. i don't think we have a good answer to that question. it may be what we are doing now, i don't know, as bad as it seems the way you describe it, is the least bad option. it's possible. >> a sobering thought. in the middle here. spread it around a little bit. >> take a few questions together. >> no intention to interrupt. since we have ten minutes to go -- might do a speed round. if i could ask you to ask a question and a woman behind you

and we can do a couple at once and the gentleman next to you. >> there are two issues that you raised initially, jack, to have an authorization for isil but what to do with the 2001 aumf. i can imagine that there could be a targeted authorization for -- to go after isil. i wonder though -- it seems harder to do something with the 2001 aumf. i was wondering if jack could speak to the implications of allowing that to linger if it isn't dealt with, not only for the president's legacy but for the future, for the next president. >> before we get to that, a few and then we can deal with them one by one, if you don't mind. >> good morning. i quite agree with senator tim kaine about this isis issue

is -- there is a bigger picture philosophy of power. as originally i came from indonesia, the largest muslim country in the world. there is a sensitivity of political culture in handling muslim issue. i'm very concerned over the bipartisan issue on isil is jeopardize our attention and focus on strategic thinking in handling the world politic against united states through radical muslim movement. and that's what i think the congress have to focus on instead of bipartisan issue. so my question is that, is there

any discussion or investigative research who are the external actors on isis? because the complexity -- complexion of political culture, it's not only the local who are the actors. the external actors should be investigated. and there are the one who is really harboring. >> we have five minutes. is your question who is really behind isis and who is funding -- >> external. >> i wonder if you could pass it. we have a chance for one each before we run up against our deadline. there's a gentleman in front of you. >> i have been waiting to ask

this question -- >> let's do one each in fairness. let's do one each. if we have time, we will come back. >> quickly, you mentioned sunset -- narrowing 2001 aumf several times. why not just sun didnset it all together? this gentleman's question, you can sunset it as well? >> briefly, i do think it's very important to update the 2001 aumf, either with the eyes sill authorization or separately. a

intention to the outside actors and causes? >> no, the flow in fupnds is a big deal question. of course, we're all read about these allegations and some countries in the region are sending money to fund isil and related groups. and that has to be fully understood. who are all of those people? where are all of those funds coming from? in addition to that, isil has

captured other sources that have been cut off. they're different from the other ones. so it's a big deal. >> but it's not just money, right? it's also the ideology and these are not just mysterious actors. there are state actors here who turn a blind eye. >> i agree. i agree. and so we have to have -- >> began providing support to them. now they realize the threat, we're not going to support them anymore. there are still external sources beyond the extortion and revenue beyond the knockoff jobs.

>> given the history of congressional inaction, there is a possibility that there could sun set. and if that happens, do the troops come home immediately without all of the equipmented? >> that's a new debate. >> i actually think that it's possibility to say that it won't be reauthorized because of some political deadlock. it's worked remarkably well since 2008. they put a sun set on it and it's worked remarkably well. it's been a force mechanism. and i think i have ever reason

to think that that will happen here. simply because the stakes are so high. but if it did, somehow, lapse, the main -- the president can do a lot of what he's doing now in theory under article ii. it's not a good idea, but he could. one consequence would be the 2001 authorization ran out, then the argument of people with getmo and other things like that would be replied. that would be the direct consequences, i think. >> i think you've raised a fair question. i'm advocating that congress do things. and your question to me is what's the likelihood of congress doing things? i do think forcing mek mitchs are helpful. and there is a precedent for use of sun sets that will act.

>> bottom line, the american people have to make this decision. not the cnn correspondent, not even a grandmother over here. and the way that the american people speak is through congress. and congress has to debate these things. and i would argue, has to vote on these things. stand up and fw accountable. >> let me just ask this closing thought. it strikes me that this is just a true moment of reckoning for the country. we talk about how the nation decides to go to war, the most grave decision that both the president and congress do. you're deciding how the nation funds these wars, which is an issue that we've punted for the last 20 years. as you say, putting it on a credit card. but, also, how the nation debates it. we haven't -- in the lead-up to iraq, we didn't have a proper public debate. et cetera. with all the political dysfunction in washington, is our government -- is congress up to that task? do you think?

>> if we after 13 years of war have not learned enough to have this discussion, god help us. if we have not learned anything in 13 years of this, we should have at least learned the question of how we start military action needs to be improved. so i think we've learned enough that we will tackle this. >> i will just say, of course, it's shameless self promotion, but i'm proud that the wilson center can deem a discussion on this on this first day back after this election from hell. and i'm very proud to talk about

this. this conversation needs to move a mile up the hill. >> thank you very much. [ applause ]

>> during a house armed services committee today, secretary hagel talked about the campaign against the terror group. he said it will only succeed with the strong support of congress. here's a portion of his remarks. >> mr. chairman, president obama, chairman dempsey, general austin, all of our leaders and i have been very clear that our campaign against isil, it will be long and it will be difficult. we are three months into a multi-year effort. as we enter a new phase of this effort, working to train and equip more counter-isil forces

in iraq and syria, we will succeed only with the stlong support of congress. and the strong support of this committee. since i campaigned before this committee two months ago, we have made progress. isil has been stalled and in some cases been stopped by u.s. and coalition air strikes. but isil continues to represent a serious american threat to our allies in the middle east and wields influence over a broad swath of territory in western and northern iraq and eastern syria. >> here are just a few of the comments we've recently received from our viewers. >> i watch c-span2 and 3. i am so pleased with the programmi programming, especially the higs

ri aspects. i just saw real america, a short trip where jfk gave a speech. i have always found that to be wonderful. i enjoyed when they went to colorado springs. so, please, please, keep up the good work. you, c-span, were the only good that came out of the congressional recess because that meant that you put on book

discussion, the history. i wasn't prepared to remember the names of the programs, the actual programs. but keep up the great work. thank you. >> i am calling to comment on the america center for progress presentation tonight. from the secretary of health and human services. i'm really upset about that. i would like c-span also to have a panel on mr. groover and so much of the others who have a very different impression of the apa. this lady did a polishing act. they asumt that we're so dumb that we can't get the detail, that we're stupid, you know, as

mr. groover said. but we can't sense when there's something salacious and sleazy going on. >> and continue to let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. e-mail us at comments@c-span.org or send us a tweet. join the conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. now, a discussion on the president's request to the fcc to preserve net neutrality. from washington journal, it's 35 minutes. >> it was this week on the west side of the white house, president obama put a video there asking the federal communications commission to adopt new rules that would observe a free and open internet. some people use the net

neutrality. >> it should make it clear that whether you use a computer, phone or tablet, internet providers have a legal obligation not to block or limit your access to a web site. cable companies can't decide which online stores you can shop at or which streaming services you can use. they can't let any company pay for priority over its competi r competitors. i'm asking the fcc to reclassify internet service under title ii of a law known as the telecommunications act. in plain english, i'm asking them to recognize that for most americans, the internet has become an essential part of everyday communication. >> and that's president obama there this week. our guest joining us now, their managing editor. talk about this issue before we get to the president's statement specifically, talk a little bit about this idea of a free and open internet. what's meant when we hear the term that's been associated with net neutrality, what does that mean? >> the con september of a free

and open internet or net neutrality, we've heard these terms used quite frequently. but, basically, it's the con september that internet service providers, comcast, at&t, verizon must treat all internet equally. they should not block web sites, treat other web sites differently. slow or degrade web sites or engage in pay-for-priority arrangement under which you can pay more money to have special quality of service factor down those speed. >> so, regardless of who they are or how they subscribe to the internet, they receive the information equal.

>> has there ever been an instance of where that didn't happen? >> the most popular example was comcast for file sharing. one of the reasons comcast did that is because they had posed a threat to the network. there were some reports that comcast feared their network might go down because of course, file sharing software. >> so, as you know, that's probably the major incident that happened when it comes to this type of issue? >> that is the major incident of a net neutrality violation. >> so when i'm a consumer and i hear about this topic of a free and open internet and things like that, why should i be interested? why should i care? >> from a consumer perspective, why should you care? you just want to make sure that you receive what you pay for.

we want to receive the whole internet and free and openly. >> so, specifically, what president obama called for, talk a little bit about what he's asking 2 fcc to do. what that means is he would like the fcc to put broad band service in a category of the communications act. a law that was written in the early 1930s. meant for the telephone monopoly, to regulate broad band more aggressively. and to do this, the fcc would have to do, what they call reclassify under title 2 of the communications act. he's out livened, essentially, four bright line tools to enact as the agency tries to reinstate

its net neutrality rules, which were vacated by circuit court earlier this year. the president would like no blocking, no throttling, increased transparency. >> so those will be formalized rules that if he got his way, would be releasing those providers of the internet. >> we think. what we have heard from the fcc this week is that they will take the president's accommodation under official record with open internet rules. and they have a lot to do, a lot of comments to read. as a result, they would probably be delayed until nerks year coming out with a new quarter. >> free and open internet, as the topic for our final segment this morning. if you have questions not only about the concepts, but also

what the president and the fcc are working on on this issue. and when i asked our guests about it, here are the lines, 202-583-3881. our line for republicans. 202-583-3852. you can also send us thoughts on twitter x as well. the internet has always been one of those things that are still free, not only free as far as how you get it, but when it comes to regulation. there's very light regulation on it. how easy is it if the president got his way to adopt these new rules and treat it like a utility company or electricity company or something like that? >> it would be very difficult, in fact, for the fcc to do this. it's lightning regular lated under hitle 2. essentially, what that means to viewers at home is that this

basis has, for a long time, been very lightly regular lated or unregular lated. and so to brichk broad band back to title 2 would require a lot of work for the fcc. for example, they would have to not only put this service in this tighter bucket, of sorts, which was, again, written for a monopoly. they would also have to use their fore baerns authority under section 10. so then so many regulations that they admit are more applicable. >> it's been down the road the time you spoke about january, a circuit court made on previous atempts. how did that fare? >> for the fcc, what the court did was actually quite interesting.

while the court, in january, vacated to the fcc's three rules, they gave the fcc somewhat of a lifeline. they said that section 706 of the telecommunications act, which was the first major update of the communications act of 19le 4. they said that this section actually does give the fcc the authority to regulate isp's behavior. and treatment of web traffic. and so there are many people in telecom policy circles that have been pushing the fcc to try again using section 706 which would avoid the rather controversial act of declassifying broad band under title 2 of the communications act. >> so the president asking for more regulation treated under the utility company. the fcc says -- is the fcc required to act? >> no, no.

and, in fact, somewhat unorthodox for a president to come out so forcefully and urge the fcc to do a certain thing. the fcc is an independent agency of the federal government. and while the president apoints the members of the federal communications commission, he really cannot make decisions, he cannot direct the fcc to do really anything. he can make suggestions. he can certainly stut policies and the fcc that he apoints could take those cues and carry out those objectives. but the fcc operates very differently. >> here to take your questions, we'll start with sam from florida, ipd pen dent line. you're on. go ahead.

>> oh, sorry. thank you. i do support what obama said about net neutrality. i think the internet is sort of new free speech. if they can dimi data, i think that's going to create a very bad thing for the internet where a corporation can do something that might benefit financially, but is going to hurt the consumer. and my question was if the fcc is independent of the government, whose direction is overseen by the government? the fcc is one of many independent achblgen sills of the government. so in a democratic administration, you will have a

3-2 split between democrats and republicans. this president has appointed two chairman. and he ark which youly helped to write the key pillar of the president's technology policy at that time. which was net neutrality. and so the members must be confirmed by the senate and the oversight falls on congress. quite frequently, the fcc is ochb the hill answering questions about why it's tarking certain policy steps. so, to answer your question, sam, the fcc's boss, really, is congress. >> i'm here in north carolina. we were inundated with ads and

then we were trying to go and fact check those ads online. it really seems there was some type of slow down. so i recaguess my question is colessing around has there been any back data that's shown a potential attack against something like the health care exchange or the online exchange process. that's kind of indicated a slow process at this point.

>> in a sense, no. the internet networks are subject to congestion. and, of course, there are traffic management issues. so i would say no, this is really about money between the largest isps and the largest providers. >> sometimes, the consumer is used as a pawn in this debate. the debate has gone on and has raged, for years, between the largest isps and the largest providers.

this all started when the chairman said google isn't going the ride on my pipes for free. so this is all about who pays for the intrastructure and how much do the larmgest content providers have to pay to the largest isps. >> things like netflix and instagram take a lot of basics. >> exactly. so things would not be as effective as backbone contract negotiations. >> so if i'm an isp, how am i looking at these actions by the president and the fcc. the isps have come out very forcefully. and they have threatened to sue. verizon and at&t flat out said we will sue the fcc if the fcc dds to reclassify as a kmochb carrier of communication service.

comcast has taken a different track. they're trying to get a merger approved by the federal communications commission and trying to get the blessing of the department of justice to merge with time warner cable. so they, of course, have to be careful with what they say. but they came out and they said, well, we support your four principles, mr. president. however, we think reclassification would not survive. >> so if i'm a content provider, am i looking at this different? >> you would be looking at this different. this could be good news for the googles, the facebooks -- >> why is that? >> because what the president has come out and said is that the fcc needs to enact much stricter rules. and the fcc has already said it

is considering a hybrid approach. that it will make take that lighter touch to regular lating no blocking, no discrimination and maybe take an aggressive approach with respect to the internet backbone. the pay-for-priority deals, set set ra, between, you know, between the content providers and the isps. >> hi, how are you doing? >> hey, dean. >> hey, i just wanted to ask, actually, a specific question, really. when it comes to internet, i believe the argument came up when it came to people, you know, the internet was being attacked or whatever. really, here's my question.

do you believe that this whole argument for open internet, did it start with the foundation with nobody messing around or is it just a business thing from the get go. at the end of the day, if we're able to understand the very beginnings of the argument, then maybe we'll be able to ask the real question and move on to the true answer. thank you for that question. i would say it did start as a business conflict, if you will, between the providers of broad band internet service. the, you know, the companies that built and operate, the big pipes that enable internet service and the internet service providers. there's always been a patient there of how much can i make out of this resource. that i've, you know, asked investors to pay for and i'd

have to maintain and operate and provide service over. well, how can i survive if i have to pay what amounts to extortion? that's their argument. how can i survive? so there's always been a tension there. and, of course, what's fascinating in the united states is that, you know, we have had -- we had had a regulated telephone monoopenly, which had a complete, you know, open policy. that, you know, a call is a call and it must go through. and the internet is operating somewhat differently.

this are more complexityties there than just a phone call. >> and you're trying to make one type of policy into a different type of service. and that's where the problems arise. >> exactly. exactly. those who wrote title 2 of the communications act of 1934 had no idea, of course, had no idea the internet was going to give rise to so much economic development, prosperity, social good, et cetera. and in the end, congress has really not spoken exclousively on this issue. so the fcc and the president and advocates of net neutrality is left with a very old statute and trying to fit it into this new world to solve problems. and that's really where a lot of the pabt is.

bethesda, maryland, you're on next. >> yes, hello. i spend a lot of time in europe. and the internet there, i don't think most americans even realize, is so much better and faster and easily accessible than it is in the united states. why is that? and do they regulate it? as a public utility? there's so many more choices. i'm faced with verizon or comcast. those are the only two that have the infrastructure. wile are they so much better than us? >> speaking broadly about europe and asia, one of the key differences between the united states and other countries, particularly europe and asia, is that their broad band infrastructure, many countries'

broad band infrastructure was financed with taxpayer dollars. what our broad band is today is essentially a network of net works. you have comcast, you have ata tnd, you have verizon, smaller companies offering and you also have 4g, lte providers. and so that is one of the reasons why you might have more choices, you might have more penetration in certain parts of asian and european countries. also, our natural topography is such that to build out broad band infrastructure is quite expensive for the isps here in the united states. we live in a very rural country, often mountainous. and building out broadband in a infrastructure is a tough business when you're talking

about having to run lines to serve, you know, very small communities. and so i would say that it's partly a mix of policies that we've, you know, the united states made a decision, our government made a decision that this should be unregulated. and we should let the private sector build out. and, partly, just the inhernt differences in how lines are strong and give service. one example we always hear is korea. how korea has the best broadband internet service in the world. one of the reasons that they have such good broad bajd internet service is that korea is a country of so many growing units.

it's so much easier to run facilities to one building and then lights up the whole building. so when you're talking about a country like that, it's quite easier to have faster speeds, bigger bandwidth. >> hi, good morning. >> i was trying to see about so much advertisement out there that it is just basically the horror of hardly anything than it's a 15 second ad. and pretty much, there's not much to do. it just slows down. do you have an idea of what this

stems from? >> can you give me an example? >> sorry. >> twitter. here's -- viewer says can the internet barely be called a public utility? >> can the internet be called a public utility. that is essentially what the president is putting forth to the fcc. it's trying to solve that question. in mexico, mexico now has one of the strictest net neutrality regimes in the world. and, in mexico, internet access is a human right. it's a public right. heavily regulated. it's a fantastically ideological for a time. is internet a right? and i -- the fcc is grappling with those questions right now.

it will have to try to use its resources, the communications act and telecommunications act try to answer that question. >> we found we would need more time. >> basing a decision on whether or not we have from the fcc's point of view. >> i think whatever the president's announcement did for the fcc was push back the time line for bringing an order up for vote by the full commission. >> i think probably will not see

any action until next year. >> i think all the companies that helped build this internet or providing services. one of the reasons why they're able to do that was because there was so much open access to the internet, it spawn ed so muh innovation, so much creativity, so many new things. where will the new, next facebook come from the we put these kind of rules in a place where companies can buy access. it becomes a race driven strictly by dollars. >> the president talked through that point on monday.

and we've heard the president as well as the chairman of the fcc commissioners talk about the fear of losing that next facebook because there is blocking and degrading and pay for priority on the internet. >> if you have the very small startoffs in some cases, might want to have the able to get their content out to customers in a faster way. this is the big guyings against the big guys. >> from pennsylvania, this is dave, republican, go ahead. >> yes, thank you for taking my call. in regards to this, what this

democratic soet has done so far, it's a free organization to be able to talk on your internet as you may do what you want to do, it's free. it's the last free thing in the united states. now, you get the government involved in this, it's going to be like a certain instance i have here in pennsylvania. i pay for cable tv to a private contractor where i get all the channels that i pay for. when i pay for them, i want to watch the phillies. if i want to watch the phillies, i have to pay extra. they give me nothing in return. nothing for my money. this is the kind of stuff you're going to get on the internet. they're going to shut you off. it's as simple as that. >> there has been quiet a lot of discussion about that, about the lack of neutrality regime

turning the internet into, essentially, a sweet of cable channels. the fcc is keenly aware of that. and they're actually looking into those issues raised in a separate proceeding. so what i can say is there are many people at the fcc overlooking that. >> on the senate side, the ranking member, part of the response to this week's action was that the decision would turn the internet into a government-regular lated utility and stifle the robust internet section with rules written 80 years ago: the president still

thinks he would siet legal uncertainty. the question here is can you, congress, stop this effort? >> congress actually tried to stop this effort back in several years ago, greg walden essentially brought an effort to the house floor. essentially, it acted like a sen chur for the fcc.

>> right now, congress is left to use its -- you know, to use its oversight authority to try to influence the fcc's thinking. >> could it make the president do the things that the fcc wapts? but what happens is chicago politics steps in and, you know, make eta on them if they own property. they'll get the irs on them. this is the way chicago politics works. and this is what the president has been doing. we have to get this out of washington, this shi ska goal stuff. >> to your point, the president, by making an announcemented

speaks to the relationship between the president, fcc and congress -- fcc as an independent agency. so certainly, the president can use it, but, beyond that, the fkc operates ind pen deptly. >> just a headline to show you from the new york times this morning, political and public pressure as it debates and thinks about open internet rules. >> my question is i was wondering if the title 2 that was up dated or amended somehow

so that it would be more in line with the way the internet is run. what worries me is poor people will be further marginalized. >> that's a great question. in 2010, congress actually considered adding a new title, which would capture all of these issues. >> what we've seen is fundamental disgreemt in congress about what to do in this issue. ken raszman had a bill that had some support. it died.

we had ledge slax on the other side that died. so i think to get congress to agree on this issue would be very, very difficult. but it has been talked about as a way to just bring some resolution. >> mary x from minnesota, you are next on our independent line from paul babragalo. >> thank you for taking my call. this is a very confusing debate because of the complexity of it. my question is what benefits the america people the most. what decisions? as far as freedom or costs? is this what we're talking about right now? for me to get freedom of information, am i going to have to pay for it? can you kind of clear the air about that? >> i'll certainly try. so your question is what would benefit the american people the most without pearlizing too much.

i think the american people would benefit if there's a policy in place that enabled content providers to provide services to consumers and a fair and open way and if internet service providers can have a reasonable expectedation of how they manage their network and what they can engage in in terms of con track churl negotiations with their providers. it really does come down to rates. we talked a little bit about programming. and, of course, cable bills are going up and up and up. and so if there is a solution that allows consumers to continue to pay reasonable, affordable rates for broad band internet service, i think that would be the best course. >> covering many issues, including topics of an open internet.

thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> i was traumatized. that's when i knew that this was terrorism. this is not a one-airplane accident. so i ran to the phone. i called many people. i wanted them to comfort me.

i called around 10 people and they all said the same thing ef enthough some of them don't know the other. don't you know this is a jewish conspiracy? the jews did it. >> and i hung up the phone and i suddenly felt i cannot relate to my country of origin anymore. and this is a very hard feeling. when you can't relate to how the people you love and you were brought up with for many, many years of your life that they don't see the reality as it should be. >> her entire interview sunday evening at 8:00 p.m. eastern on

c-span's "q&a."

>> good afternoon, emp. and especially to michael stanly. i'm jane harman, the president and ceo of the wilson center and friend of michael addler. i want to especially recognize his girlfriend, era, who traveled from germany and stayed here just after michael passed. a few weeks before michael died, andrew cealy and i went to have breakfast with him in his georgetown home.

though he was clearly ill, his eyes glean ed, he had on a starched shirt and he served us a full breakfast, a little bit of which he at. he was optimistic about the future. and that's how i think we should remember him. whatever happened when we hit the november 24th deadline for the iran nuclear deal, some of my own interests in it has dimmed because michael won't be telling me about it. and because i won't be able to share his excitement. the wilson center has had many scholars and has had many now. but whether because of hissal ent or the incredible impact of his expertise, michael stood out. we honor his legacy today. and, more specifically, we

wanted to do something else. so we will be putting up a plaque near the library where michael spent countless hours to commemorate more permanently his contributions. to the center and to his beloved subject. you are welcome to visit a hanging today this the entrance. staff will be on hand to drekt you to the space. we have the perfect panel here today to celebrate michael. rob litvak, who was the president's vice president for scholars will have more about mark and david in a moment.

>> just remember, they wrote some of their best books right here at the wilson center. and they're going to write their next best books right here at the wilson center. director of nonproliferation in the clinton administration, that was in another century, folks. >> he's just put out a very important monograph on iran's nuclear chest. i think i would have no better tribute to michael than the conversation you're having today. only one thing is missing from that conversation. michael. at the close of our discussion, please join us for a reception in the wilson center dining room. which is right here on the sixth floor. staff will drekt you. and, now, let me just say one more time. how much we love michael and i'll turn the program over to robert. thank you for coming. [ applause ]

>> it is fitting that we honor michael today by addressing the viewe vital issue on which he worked with such determination and pass for many years. michael is missed by so many people. the integrity of his work. his clarity of thought. but this panel includes two distinguished journalists, who, like michael, wilson center fellows, is particularly at. on my left, david sanger. a national security coral responsible kent r dent for the new york times. david was a public policy scholar at the center when he wrote his book, the inheritance, the world obama con fronts and the challenge to power. mark misetti more recently wrote the war at the ends of the earth. >> not long ago, a meeting on iran's nuclear challenge would have focused on the possibility

with the focus on iran. now, nuclear policy is playing against the backdrops against isis and alignmented with iran. with the november 24th negotiating deadline i told him urging him not to miss a historic opportunity. so what are the prospects from the nuclear deal. the division is i'll frame the nuclear issue within the broader context. david sanger will follow with a more details assessment and the perm nant members of the security council plus germany. and then mark misetti will

conclude by widening the october with multity-rejal developments will affect the nuclear negotiations. >> the iran trade-off between transparency. iran would maintain a limited nuclear program in return for the lifting of economic sanctions. technical detarials, such as numbers of center fujs, the scope of inspections and the timetable based on compliance readily worked out.

it's a program to require a weapon in the face of an existential threat. the dilemma is that iran has master eed uranium enrichment f nuclear power reactors to keep spinning the bombs. for the region, the former head of the atomic radiation has maintained that it's a virtual nuclear weapon state. from a national security perspective, a hedge, a nuclear hedge, is iran's strategic sweet spot. maim taning the potential of the nuclear option while avoiding the regional and international cost of actual weaponization. as former president put it, as long as we can enrich uranium and master the local fuel cycle, we don't need to do anything else. our neighbors will be able to

draw the proper conclusions. president obama has declared to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. to deny iran any nuclear hedge option. this is the main point of contention between president obama and his congressional critics and netanyahu, who went to, who want a full roll back of iran's uranium enrichment program, to deny iran any hedge. since the p 5 plus 1's nuclear approach is focused on bounding, not limiting the program, the tehran regime will retain the option. a hedge for a nuclear weapon. the major stumbling block in the negotiations has been the scale of the program that iran would

retain under an agreement. the number of centrifuges and their sentryification are key to extebding the timeline for a potential breakout. the number of months iran would need to enrich weapons grade material if the regime made the decision to webbize. the u.s. position is that this break out period for converting a hedge for a weapon should be long enough, at least 12 months, for the united states to have sufficient strategic warning to mobilize an international response. in other words, an agreement should not just leave iran a screwdriver turned away from a bomb. between these two points, iran and the united states should be able to work out an agreement. the hard reality of course is that the nuclear em pass has so far proved impact abl because of its political character.

as i argue my new monograph for both iran and the united states, the nuclear issue is a proxy for a more fundamental debate. this status remains the key determinant of whether nuclear diplomacy can prove successful. in iran, the nuclearish is a surrogate for the defining debate over the country's future relationship with the outside world. whether in his words, the islamic republic is a ref aleutian fair state or ordinary country. the threat posed by rogue states in the era. the obama administration dropped the term rogue state used by the bush administration and instead, called iran an outlier.

especially redeemable, that their behavior was inextricably linked to the character of their regimes. this argument was central to the bush administration's case for preventive war in iraq. by contrast, the outlier rubric was intended to suggest that a path way for iran to rejoin the community of nations. if the tehran regime complied with the treaty. hence a major criticism of obama's nuclear diplomacy is that it does not address other threatening behavior, such as iran state spop sorship of terrorism derives from the character of the regime. was the findinging that tehran's

decisions are to be guided by a approach harather than a weapon. this analysis under the occasional depix of iran as irrational rogue state. president obama has questioned whether the regime's id logical commitment to weapons is such that they're not making a simple cost benefit analysis on that issue, president obama said that iranian decision making indicates that the clerics quote care about the regime's survival, closed quote. obama has further argued that the crippling pressure from sanctions, grinding the economy to a halt, the opportunity to make a strategic calculation to webbize.

the paradox of nuclear diplomacy with the regime is captured in an anonymous quip about the country. iran does not respond to pressure, but without pressure, iran does not respond. president rue hany campaigned on ending to country's isolation and the punishing sanctions to be a part of. while ak wii esing the 2013 electoral mandate. the supreme leader remain it is final arbiter of any perspective agreement. his decision will hinge on how he manages the tension in iran's competing eyedty. economic sanctions whose affects are now compounded by the drop in the price of oil brought iran to the negotiating table.

it will affect the leaders decision to accept or reject terms if r a comprehensive agreement that meaningfully bounds iran's nuclear infrastructure. that a strategic calculation will be based on whether the economic benefits of an agreement through sanctions relief outweigh the political cost of alienating the core hard line interest groups, especially the revolutionary guard, upon which the regime's survival depends. so, here we are then. as the november 24th negotiating deadline approaches, there are three possible outcomes. breakthrough, break down or muddling through. by hunlging the hedge so to speak would give each side a winning -- its right to enrich uranium, one meaningful sanctions relief and fended off efforts to link the nuclear

issues to other issues. the obama administration could claim that it has kept a latent iranian capability latent by extending the breakout period for potential weaponization. but the supreme leader fears a nuclear accord could put iran on a slippery slope of demands from the west for additional policy changes and for that reason, now that we are at the crunch point, ham nad may bawl k. a breakdown in negotiations would not interntly push iran into a nuclear break out. iran has no immediate national security imperative to acquire nuclear weapons. the tehran regime would retain a hedge, keeping weapons option open while avoiding the international and regional fallout of overt weaponization. but in the event of a breakdown, the possibility of military action would -- before.

on the use of force of how unattractive that option would be. that openly debated option on the table would be the most telegraphed punch in history and it runs up against major liabiliti liabilities. it would not end the program, but delay it for a few years. as a former iaea director put it. you can't bomb knowledge. further, even a so-called strike would escalate into a general war. ham nad warned it would lead to retaliation worldwide. in addition, bombing active nuclear insulations, so-called hot sites, carry a significant risk of spewing toxins into the environment and causing casualties. finally, a strike could generate a nationalist backlash within

iran with a perverse consequences of bolstering the regime. an a plausible outcome is neither breakthrough nor break down, but muddling through. another agreement which would incorporate what progress has been made and extend the talks. this is applauplausible given t major investment both have made in nuclear diplomacy and their mutual interest in averting a breakdown with all its uncertain potential. an anonymous iranian official recently said iran would be willing to work with the united states against isis if the obama administration would be more flexible in the nuclear negotiations. by attempting to link the regional conflict with isis to the nuclear talks, iran risked overplaying its hand. the campaign against the islamic state have a mu yulty of interest, offers the regime

neither leverage in the negotiations nor a reason to hold out for better terms. the p 5 plus 1 now are offering iran a straightforward trade off between technology, a bounded uranium enrichment ram aprogram transparency. the tehran regime should take the deal and not miss an historic opportunity. with that, let me turn to david sanger. who will provide more detailed assessment of the negotiations themselves. >> i think michael would be pleased to see this room completely jammed in a session that while we're here to speak to you is really much more about him than anything wean