beyond that, i'm looking at a few of them here, 1955 with defense of taiwan, president authorized to employ the armed forces as he deems necessary. look at 1957 in the middle east. authorized to cooperate with and assist any nation or group of nations. 1964, southeast asia, take all the necessary measures to repeal any armed attack. then we come to this one, where the president is authorized to subsection c. i would submit that's not just very comforting and not very strong aumf. more accurately may be an authorization for the use of not too much military force. when you signal to our enemies and to our allies that we're not going to use ground troops. we certainly don't want to.

we may not anticipate that we will. but to put that aside and say we're not going to doesn't strike me as wise. the commander-in-chief has that policy, but he can change his mind as conditions warrant. it's far more difficult once the congress has spoken to go back to the congress and say now conditions have changed on the ground and we need a new aumf. what do our enemies do in the meantime? what do our allies do in the meantime? i would respectfully say that when my colleagues here are saying that the president needs to show more leadership and actually put an aumf together and present it to the congress, one that is in keeping with the history and what we need for the future, i'll be glad to give you

a copy. that doesn't substitute for one that will come from the president. for him to make the strong case to congress that this is what we need, that's what we need as you put our allies deserve it. our enemies need to understand it. and we need this country together. so again, i would ask you why in this context can we get. the president to put his own bs aumf and all do respect to the chairman and others who tried to put something together here that can pass, i would submit that it's not worth it to get something that so limits our president and his option that it's not comforting to our allies and it is too comforting to our enemy. >>. senator, thank you for your comments. i said at the outset that the problem that the president and the administration has with this is this question of the limitations and restrictions.

but i also said i think there's a way to try to work with you. we don't want to sit here and stop all capacity to be able to get a strong resolution by simply being we're not going to accept any kind of appropriate calibration of this. so we think that there's a way to try to figure that out. now i don't disagree with you. i don't know what your second example -- what did you say? you went back. >> 1957 in the middle east. >> at least from '64 on to iraq and others, i think there's been a strong reaction in the country that unfettered openness has

resulted in some bad judgments that have cost the country an awful lot of money and other assets. and i think with the tension in this debate, obviously, is between those who are willing to provide that bloated constitutional authority that the president can make those decisions and shouldn't have any e restraint with those who are cautioned by the post and want to have some adequate congressional restraint with the american people to get into another open-ended deal. so how do you balance that? part of the balance comes in this three-year duration notion with congress's preordained and defined input. that's a pretty measured way to try to do it.

maybe there's some notification requirement that we can work through here. i do think, and the president feels, and i know that the members of the military feel very strongly that in terms of actually implementing -- i mean, we all decidesed we have to defeat these guys. everybody has agreed we have to degrade u and defeat isil. i don't think the congress is going to sit here and tell you exactly how you're going to do that. that's what we have the professional military for. >> if i may, we need to make sure that there's a balance here between the president's rights as commander-in-chief and the military's ability to implement and achieve our goal. that's the balance we're looking for. >> post '64, there's been an attempt to balance this because of some situations we have had. those have been more on any conditions that have been with the aumf, we can only authorize use of force after all

diplomatic measures have been exhausted. that's typically what's done on the front end, but once we commit ground troops or our military forces, i should say, then in every case that i have seen unless i'm not aware of others, we have never tied the president's hands, or as you put in here, that we have not preemptively bind the hands of the commander-in-chief. i just don't think it would be wise to do so here. so thank you for your testimony. >> thank you very much, senator. appreciate it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, secretary kerry. senator menendez, you really pushed to get us here to this point. and i know the ranking member did too. we wouldn't be here without you because we needed at least one witness to try to address this. and i u really appreciate you

helping us work through it. i have a couple questions about how things are going now. maybe you can't answer them, but the success of our u.s. strategy in iraq appears predicated on the shift of sunnis away from the islamic state and into cooperation with the government. and to what extent is that shift occurring, if at all right now, and what factors will determine the extent of the alteration in allegiances? >> that's a very good question and appropriate one because essential to the ability to be able to be successful in iraq will be the inclusivity of the sunni population, the commitment of the sunni tribes and to u ultimately join with the national army in order to push isil out.

that, i believe, is a work in progress. not i believe, that is a work in progress. there are currently a number of battalions in training. those battalions will allow those that are experienced and held together to go out into the field. there's work being done with the tribal leaders right now. the tribes, a certain number of people are coming together to provide a sunni fighting force as part of it. there's a plan to be implemented, put in. place, a national guard, which will be more reflective of people and where they live so that there's an inherent investment by them in defending that community, which there didn't exist. >> is there a shift taking place and to what extent? >> that shift is beginning to take place. it's in its early stages. i don't want to promise you something beyond where it is,

but it is beginning and it is legitimate and there have been successes. the area has been the refinery has -- it's not complete yet, but it's been a success thus far in pushing isil back. the relief effort that took place, the mosul -- the mosul dam, these are areas where there have been clear successes. and there are increasing efforts that are taking place. we believe that there are very promising signs. it's too early to stand up and down and shot, but it's moving in the right direction. we feel confident it's the right strategy. >> now when we announce that we were going to -- when the

president announced to degrade and destroy isil, a number of groups around the world in islamic countries pledged allegiance to the islamic state. how should the authorization of force treat groups who have pledged their allegiance to the islamic state including as of december 2014 groups in algeria, egypt, yemen and saudi arabia. >> they should be associated forces. >> you've outlined here the three areas of authorization of force. one of them is duration. and you mentioned in your testimonies, secretary kerry, a provision that provides for an extension under certain circumstances. so you're willing to go with three years.

and just as an aside, i'm much closer to senator paul with one year, but assuming you're willing to go with the three years, who is the extension at the choice office, the administration or the congress? or do you want a administration under specific circumstances to go forward? >> that's the precision of the language that we have to sit down and work through. i would want white house counsel and others, obviously, to weigh in very heavily on that. >> but this is a policy question. >> it's always a policy question. congress always has the ability to cut off money for something. you have the power of the purse, no matter what is stated. and the president has the power of the commander-in-chief and executive authority and he will make his decision and that's the debate. my thought is if you sit down and work this through, you come up with an equation that works effectively. >> but you won't today say that

p provision should be congress revisiting it in three years or the administration -- >> i think the administration deserves first crack, there's no question in my mind about that. >> so it's not a real three years. you want -- >> no, i said first crack at it. i don't think congress is going to sit here and say you ought to continue it. the executive is saying i'm not going to order my troops to do that. clearly, the commander-in-chief is going to make a decision as a matter of the administration's foreign policy and as a war-fighting policy, but there needs to be, obviously, i would assume for you, some manner of weighing in on that and how that is affected and what the language is is what we ought to be working through. it's not for me to casually throw it out here. i think -- i know there's a way to balance this. >> i think the important thing is that congress, whatever the period of time, needs to reweigh

back in, be involved, be engiejed in terms of where we are at that particular point. and in the three areas you outlined on the authorization of force, my opinion is what we're talking about is an open-ended authorization. there's no geographic limitation. i think there should be a geographic limitation. i don't think we should allow them to go into a number of countries surrounding this area. secondly, this language, no boots on the ground, the president has used that language that should be in the resolution. it should be strong. if you want to have boots on the ground, you should come back to the congress in order to continue with a war with american troops on the ground.

and as far as the duration, i mentioned that ermier. i think one year would be more appropriate because it's been very difficult for us to get the information we need in order to find out whether we should be moving forward or not. and then just as a final issue here, i want to mention the issue of paying for this. there's no doubt that we are starting a third war in this particular region. you don't have to look very far to know it's a war to look at the troops that are fighting, look at the airstrikes and one of the biggest questions with all wars is how do you pay for them. and up until iraq and afghanistan, the generation that fought a war paid for the war. and i believe we started a policy, which was a very misguided policy, e we put afghanistan, we put iraq, we put them on the credit card.

is the president prepared to present a plan to the congress to pay for this war, the president says it's beginning to be lengthy, it's going to be three years, is he willing to put forward war bonds, war surcharge, a terrorism tax like some have called for? is he willing to put anything on the table in order to pay for this? >> the president has put on the table the request for $1.52 billion was additional resources for department of state, to degrade and ultimately defeat isil. we put additional funding requests in, $520 million -- >> i'm talking about paying for it with a -- like all the other wars have been paid for. >> this is paid for within the context of the current budget. >> i take it -- >> that's what we're doing. let me just say one thing, though, senator, if i may. i respect the notion that you have an opinion about one year and strong feelings about the

geographic that i will say to you, if you limit this geographically, you're saying to -- and we didn't limit al qaeda geographically. and we have been able to do very real damage and keep plots from hitting us. the christmas bombing plot have come out of other places in pakistan or afghanistan. one came out of another location. we are not limited by geographic authority. i will tell you we'd have a much bigger problem today if we were and it would be terrible to send a message to these guys. we have a safe haven over here and if we don't take this seriously, this is bigger than just where it is in iraq and syria. secondly, let me be crystal clear, we didn't start this. we're not about to start a third

war. osama bin laden started this in 9/11 and he has continued it through what al qaeda does, isil is an extension of al qaeda. it's part of the same thing. it's clear what they want to do and it's a risk and danger to all of the region, which is why we have this extraordinary coalition. this is not the united states of america trying to start something. grateful for what we're doing here because they are at risk. saudi arabia, egypt, the region, syria, israel, you run the list, jordan, ask any of them. that's why they publically stepped up and are part of this effort. we have to understand this is the fight of the generation. that's what i believe and president obama believes it. and we need to understand what

it a big challenge it is and it's going to take a lot more than just trying to deal with it through this military component. there's no military solution, though we have to fight back. but if a lot of young kids out there are left to their own devises and don't have options for jobs and education and a decent life and opportunity and so forth, this is going to continue. >> that's something we can agree on. >> senator mccain. >> let me say, i agree with your comments about the parameters of the aumf, but this is really a charade we're going through because congress and the united states isn't going to act in the next couple days. . i have been involved in many aumfs and not a single one generated from the congress. the reason why constitution calls the president the

commander-in-chief is because he's supposed to lead. if he wants an authorization for the use of military force, he should lead and tell us what he wants that authorization to be. and frankly, for you to say that, well, we welcome it or whatever it is, of course, is an aber gags of the responsibilities of the president of the united states as commander-in-chief. as we go through this charade whether or not we have a vote or not almost makes it all irrelevant. i would hope in january we're working with the new chairman and the new ranking member and other members of this committee that the president of the united states to the congress and to this committee and we could work together on it. but it's got to be led by the commander-in-chief. frankly, that's how the system works. that's how it's worked every time. now, i'd like to switch gears real quickly.

>> u.s.-back. ed syria rebels linked to al qaeda, time is running out for obama in syria. syrian rebels are in danger of collapse before help arrives, all of these are well-known media experts and they are on the verge of collapse and they are getting beaten very badly. one of the major reasons they are getting beat. en very badly is because they are subject to bombing and air attacks from bashar al assad. so i guess my question again is -- and by the way, ambassador jeffrey says time isn't on our side. reconsider the no combat formations on the ground decision because you may have to either renig on that. there's a gap between the two. ambassador ford, isis is not something which drone strikes or f-16 strikes is going to contain

because the islamic state, it's a state. so you do not e destroy a state with drone strikes. you're going to require boots on the ground. so what we're e seeing is the incrementalism that i saw in the vietnam war. we're seeing decisions made in a tight circle in. the white house. we're seeing them incremental implemented. we're seeing 200 additional troops and 500 more and then 1,000 more. meanwhile, our syrian rebels honestly do not understand why you won't protect them from bashar al assad's intense bombing campaign and we're not attacking bashar al assad and we're asking these young people to fight and to die and bashar al assad, as you should know, is their major enemy and we're not doing anything to stop bashar al assad from bombing them and slaughtering them. this is the guy that has killed 200,000.

this is the guy that's caused 300 million refugees. he still has people in his prisons in which he's treated with atrocities. these photos that were smuggled out. got no response from the president of the united states or frankly from you. should have been a causist vel lie. the rebels are being routed because they are being attacked not only by bashar al assad, but also extremist organizations called isis and others. and they are in the verge of collapse, at least in one part of the country. now you're telling me we have a strategy to defeat bashar al assad and we have a strategy to defeat isis in iraq and syria, even though we are treating them as two separate battles, at least as far as strategy is concerned. maybe you can respond to that

and tell me what -- how you justify morally telling young syrians to go and fight in syria and yet allow them to be barrel bombed by bashar al assad, whose intensity of airstrikes vastly increased those greater than those of u.s. airstrikes on isis. >> well, senator, thank you. look, i think everybody, there are certain frustrations here, we all understand that. and i'll come back to syria in one quick moment, but in point of fact, if i can correct you, you're not correct that when we have been here there have not been instances where authorizations didn't originate right here in the committee. the year before i came here on the lebanon in 1983 it did. in 1991 when i was here, it

originated here in the committee. george walker bush sent troops to the middle east to respond -- >> i'd be glad to argue with you about it, but it has been led by the presidents. i'd appreciate if you'd go on and justify how we can continue the massacre of brave young syrians. >> i'll come back to it, but i'm going to answer the question. >> i didn't ask a question. i made a statement. please move on to the slaughter in syria, please. >> i'm not going to sit here like a ping-pong ball. i think your statement was incorrect. and you know everybody is accountable for what they say and so are you. the fact is you're incorrect. on january 8th, 1991, bush sent a letter here requesting it to adopt a resolution and a few days later congress gave him what he asked for. >> e he came over with a proposal. so go ahead.

he did come over with a proposal. you and i can argue about that if you want to. i was here too. he came over with a proposal. >> he did not and the record will show that. and again in somalia in 1993, the committee, like wise, did that. i served on the committee. and senator biden, now vice president, was on the committee. we know what happened. so we can let the record speak to that. with respect to what is happening, i think i was up front and in the north they are seriously challenged. we understand that. we said that. but the fact is that more is being done and more is being done than i can talk about here in this hearing, but the fact is that there are greater capacities being provided to the opposition, and our hope is that when we work things through with the turks and over the next days, certain decisions will be made that, in fact, will provide greater capacity. but yes, they are challenged

today in the north. but here's the reality. what we are doing to train them, the opposition, and what is being done with respect to isil, because the opposition particularly in the north has been fighting isil and they have been fighting the regime. what we're doing -- >> we're allowing them to be barrel bombed. >> we're not allowing them -- >> we're not preventing them from being barrel bombed. >> is the committee ready to vote? >> that's not my answer. my answer is to give them the weapons they need. they do not have those weapons. it's 200,000 dead. i said we were going to hit the trifecta. you hit it on syria, palestinians, israelis and now on iran. and now you're still not giving these people the support they need and deserve while 200,000 have been butchered.

>> senator, we are in the process right now, and i think you know this, there are certain things and i think it's dis disingenuous to say nothing is happening when it is. and the fact is in a classified setting, you can go through precisely what is taking place and i think you'll have a better sense of the options. >> i'm sure people are pleased to know that things are happening that we can't even talk about. >> senator, i mean, the rules of the senate. classified information is classified information. if you want to fight about that, you can. >> i want to know why we haven't helped them for the last three or four years. >> the time for the senator has expired. >> senator, we are helping them. we might not be helping them to your satisfaction, but there's a lot of help being given to them. >> senator murphy.

>> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you and the ranking member, secretary kerry, for taking this process so seriously. i don't think this is a charade. whether or not we pass this through the house and the senate in the next few days, this has been a forcing mechanism without a submission from the administration for whatever reason they may have. we needed this process. we needed these deliberations in order to get to a text that while it may not pass through both houses will be much more easily passed in january because of the work this chairman and this committee has done and hopefully the discussions that secretary kerry is prepared to be a part of. two quick points. i think what we're talking about here is a distinction what the administration believes to be preferable in authorization and what many of us believe to be necessary, which is an authorization. and just by way of explanation as to why we think that, there's a difference in what we believe isis to be.

they don't believe this is a matter of a name change. this is an organization whose name is different, but who had a very specific tactical and streej call difference and many of us worry if a change in name and a change in tactic and a change in strategy and a change in hierarchy doesn't prompt us to pass a new authorization, we're not sure how we ever get out from underneath the original 2001 aumf, which is why we think this is vitally necessary. my second point is on this question of limitations. senator flake and senator johnson rattled off a list of authorizations that were fairly open-ended in nature and that certainly has been the practice often in this congress. i can rattle you off a similar list of authorizations that the congress has passed that have limitations. you can start in the 1790s with

our authorizations for action against the french navy, but fast forward to 1983 in lebanon, 1993 in somalia, 2013, the authorization passed by this committee. all of them had different kinds of limitations. lim limitations on time, limitations on tactics. it really is just a question of whether we think that the policy that we're talking about is so important that it should be in statutory language. i think that's what you're hearing from many of us on this committee. we understand that it is preferable to have a bipartisan bill. in most circumstances it's probably preferable to the administration, but occasionally there are questions so important that they are deserving of a statutory limitation. that's why i think we're having this struggle on this question of ground forces. many of us believe that the deployment of ground forces in

the middle east today would essentially be fighting a fire with gasoline. that if we have learned anything from the last ten years, it's that the massive deployment of american forces create twice as many foreign fighters and extremist fighters as they eliminate in the long run and provide a crunch to stand down and let us do all the work. while they continue to stew in their dysfunction. the republ there is substantial disagreement that there's an element of the military that would like to have a serious conversation about the deployment of ground forces and we take, and i take at least, i take a prohibition from the president incredibly seriously. i don't doubt that you and the president are committed to keeping ground forces out of this equation.

many worry that balance could tip or the next administration could think differently. my question would just be simple. it would be helpful to hear a little bit more about why you think -- why the policy is such that you think it would be a bad idea that it would be counter to our policy of degrading and defeating isil to insert ground forces into the equation? because we sort of just take that for granted, but that clearly is a debate that's happening within foreign policy circles, this committee, this administration and it would be helpful to hear how strongly u that view is held within the white house. >> well, senator, thank you for a very articulate statement of sort of what the tensions are here and what's at stake. i don't disagree with you. i think it is important for congress to have that statutory statement of some kind or

another. and i assure you president obama who served on this committee for four years and senator biden, now vice president, served in this committee for 30 years or ne near, both are huge supporters of the war powers act, as i am. he's lived by it even in situations where he felt like he didn't have to set it up, he set it up. he was moved on the side of caution. and of compliance. and they believe it is important to have an appropriate authorization of military force. but as president of the united states, he also believes that his constitutional authority is vital and his ability as

commander-in-chief to fully empower his military to be able to effect what he needs should not be micromanaged and restrained in a way that might eliminate, might eliminate some option they may need at some point in time. it would be hard to imagine given the experience of iraq and all that we learned about our forces on the ground and these reactions of people that you talk about that someone is going to voluntarily say we ought to have major ground force for a long period of time. what we're really talking about is protecting against emergencies, certain circumstances that may or may not arise. for instance, like the rescue effort, tragically, that didn't work of luke somers the other day, would that have been envisioned? i don't think so. but there are other circumstances that may arise. and we can't predict them all. nobody can. so all we're trying to do is

preserve the duration, the timeframe here is such, and i think you yourselves have to trust your own power in the congress and the ability of congress if there was suddenly movements to do this, i can't imagine it being funded. i can't imagine there isn't going to be a human cry that would be overwhelming in reaction to that. absence some extraordinary circumstances that merited that kind of response. but do you want to preguess that? do you want to predetermine what -- then you're tangled up in a statutory knot trying to get out of it. i think the better part of wisdom here is to try to maintain an adequate level of flexibility, but at the same time preserve your prerogative through the duration of time.

the administration has said the president is prepared to have his people sit carefully, work through this language, try to see how to balance. these equities. what he wants is the broadest vote possible. get everybody in a place where they are comfortable, if that is achievable, and i think it ought to be. >> i appreciate that. i think the more you review the chairman's draft, you'll see that that specific hypothetical that you posed is covered by one of these exceptions. i would imagine every other hypothetical that could be presented is going to be covered by the exceptions in. the draft. but i look forward to that process. i don't think there's reason to be as scared of the limitations as you may be. >> if they are all covered, maybe it's better to say something about no enduring activity. there's a way to cover it with one sentence. let's think about other ways -- all i'm saying is, folks, let's

agree to try to find a way to talk this through without -- >> as i turn to the senator, let me say on that particular issue, page 5 of the draft says that troops are permitted for the protection or rescue of members of the u.s. armed forces or united states business. ss from eminent danger. >> i have other examples. >> i'm sure we could throw out a hundred. but i'm happy to see the language if that can be envisioned. >> thank you, mr. chairman. today's hearing on the authorization of the use of military force against isil, i believe, is critically important. declaring war or authorizing the use is one of the most serious responsibilities of congress. there can hardly be a task more weighty than sending our nation's sons or daughters into harm's way to protect our interests. i believe president obama has an

obligation to congress and to the american people to spell out the direct threat posed by isil, to outline his strategy for comprehensively destroying isil and request the authorities he needs to successfully complete the mission. i believe isil is a threat to our homeland and i support efforts to eliminate this terrorist threat. our committee is debating the authorization for the use of military force while the president has already been taking offensive military actions against isil for months. president obama hasn't submitted a request outlining that authorization that he is seeking from congress. normally when the executive branch wants an authorization it formally requests that legislative authorization and then is actively involved in negotiating over the language and advocating its passage. that's how the 2001 was developed. we see no similar effort on behalf of the obama administration. so in the absence of the administration specific request

or submission of a proposal for authorization, some members of congress are more interested in placing limitations and tying the hands of the president and our nation's generals. whether it is geographic l, these are misguided and dangerous. congress should either be. authorizing the use of force or not authorizing force. congress should not try to m micromanage a war through an authorization. so if the administration had provided military and intelligence witnesses and the chairman has already made a comment about your willingness to come forward but not having all of the abilities to answer all the questions, i would have asked how the limitation of the use of ground troops would impact the military's planning and the ability to respond to conditions on the ground. so since they are not here, i ask you, how do we ensure that any aumf continues to allow the u.s. to strike and destroy isis should it expand outside of any

limitations, which may be included in an aumf that's being offered? >> well, that's precisely why we're trying to work out this question of the limitations. because i cant answer. >> you believe there should not be. limitations. >> i say we are prepared to embrace a clarification, a process by which there's an understanding of how we can balance these equities. it may require some kind of restraint that we feel would not abrogate responsibilities. i think there's a way to work at it, and that's what we're offering to try to do. i think that -- an example, what about non-u.s. hostage or prisoner? that might be a situation. you can run through all kinds of things here. the point is we're just trying

to preclude sending restraint messages to folks that were trying to defeat and degrade and at the same time balance the equityties of the concerns people have about the open-endedness that we have lived with in the past and it's a legitimate concern. everybody ought to help try to find a way to work that through and in doing so, we can ensure that we have the kind of broad-based bipartisan resolution that we deserve. >> do you think there are specific authorities that the administration needs that they currently don't have to degrade and destroy isil? >> at this point in time, the authorization we're living with at this point? no, i think the president feels he has the full authority. >> but we acknowledge that it needs refining. we acknowledge that there is a

gap in time and a sufficient differential in what we're fighting that the american people are owed and more precise articulation that meets the current moment and that's what the president is saying we should have. >> mr. secretary, your predecessor at georgetown university, hillary clinton, recently stated in a speech at georgetown that america needs to show respect for our enemies and empathize with their perspective and point of view. isis terrorists are going to go away. we can't ignore them and we can't empathize and show respect to people who have brutally murdered americans. do you believe as secretary of state that a key solution to our enemies such as isis and al qaeda, is quote, showing respect and empathize iing with their perspective and point of view? >> i missed the first part of the quote, i apologize. >> hillary clinton at georgetown recently said the american needs

to show respect for our enemies and empathize with their perspective and point of view. >> i don't -- i'm confident -- i know she was not referring to a group like dash. i think she's -- i think in terms of what she meant she is referring to those out there with whom we are not actively fighting or engaged in war but who are behaving in ways that are clearly opposed to our interests. there are plenty of people in that status, regrettably, whether it is in the middle east in certain countries or in other parts of the world. we have a lot of tensions right now with russia. and it's clear that any u analysis of what is happening in ukraine and how you deal with it requires you to look very carefully at all their posturing

and where it comes from and what may be involved and how one might be able to diffuse it. that does not include a group like dash. it would be unfair to insinuate that it does. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. a lot has been made here about placing restrictions on aums. the suggestion that there's no precedent doing that. that's simply not true. most have limited the type of forces deployed into harm's way, the geographic scope and the period of time. it's declarations of war, which is not what we're doing that have typically authorized the president to use all military means available to the united states for unlimited duration. my text is clearly not a declaration of war nor has the administration asked for for a declaration of war. several of my colleagues have noted this, but some of the

aumfs that have included restrictions are the 1993 somalia, which authorized u.s. armed forces in a limited way to protect u.s. personnel and assist in security. the 1983 lebanon that prohibited offensive actions, the 2013 syria aumf that passed through this committee, i think one of its high water marks, in a bipartisan way expressly did not authorize the use of the united states armied forces for the purpose of combat operations. we have a span of nearly 30 years in which aumfs have had limitations. the suggestion of no limitations is a historical -- that having limitations is a historical aberration is not the case.

the amendment has driven us to this moment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, secretary kerry. you have not been before us to receive the thanks of your committee for some of your diplomacy, the diplomatic efforts to help reform the government in iraq, the diplomatic efforts to break the impass in afghanistan, i want to thank you for those because those efforts were important. i want to thank you for your efforts on behalf of the administration to build a coalition that's fighting against isil. senator king and i went to the air base in qatar in early october and went to the operations center and witnessed the coalition in action, full screen, videos, data coming in, u.s.-saudi, dutch, belgium, uk, qatar, trading information, making decisions together in

both, very impressive. you deserve our thanks for that. but we can't do military action without congress. and we are currently in what the administration has described beginning in late august as a war against isil. those were the phrase. s used. since we moved from the immediate protection of u.s. embassy personnel in baghdad to an effort to take back a dam in the middle of august, the president said we have gone on offense against isil. yesterday we passed four months, we're in month five, of an air strike campaign that has involved 1,100-plus airstrikes, 1,500 train and assist adviser z on the ground, another 1,500 authorized to go. the cost of this to the american taxpayer is in access of $1 billion. and three american troops have been killed supporting operation inherent resolve and we ought to

mention their names. october 1, jordan spears from memphis, indiana. october 23, shawn neil from riverside, california. december 1, captain william dubois of new castle, colorado, an air force captain. we're at war. and congress has not yet really done a darn thing about it. i respect the comments that the ranking member, senator corker, who i deeply respect earlier about the process of this is not ideal. it was not ideal when senator paul tried to file an international. water bill, but if we hadn't done it, we wouldn't even be doing this until january. congress has been silent about this. i don't think we weaken our nation so much with an unwielding process as we weaken our nation when we don't take seriously the most somber responsibility that congress has, which is to engage around the declaration at the

beginning. not five months in, at the beginning about whether we should initiate war. constitutionally it's required. i'm driven by a more important value. i don't think it's fair to ask people like these three to risk their lives to give their lives in a mission if congress hasn't had a debate and put their thumbprint on it and said this is in the national interest. if we're not willing to do that, how can we ask people to risk their lives. i think it would be foolish to leave here this week or next, to adjourn, wait until january when we come back, january 8th, the first week we're back we would be into the sixth month of war without congress taking any action. this is not about a quest to just seem relevant. for those of us who do not believe that the authorizations give this a legal authority, every day we have been on offense without congress we believe is an unauthorized war. we believe it's our oath of office and fundamental constitutional responsibilities.

there's a difference of opinion between the executive and legislature on this, but remember this is about an argument about what power the legislature gave to the gave an not be surprised to know that those of us in the legislative branch have a strong opinion. we should act. we have got a deadline tomorrow to file amendment gs to this one. you say we're close. offer your own word smith and i'm sure that the chairman will make sure we can consider the administration's position. i want to ask you a question

about whether the president or administrative's position could change. we will not get drug into another ground war. >> and finally, on september 182014, i won't commit our troops to fighting another ground war in iraq or in syria. has the president's position or

has the administration's senator murphy i would recommend to all of my colleagues. it is an extensive review of the constitutional power of congress with respect to military authorizations and it begins with a case that went to the supreme court. the authorizations did not authorize the president to use all of the armed forces or to conduct military okurgss.

the president's intent as stated repeatedly to the american public and military is clear. the language in the chairman's work is not a restriction at all. it is attempting to carry out exactly how the president has described the mission.

>> i would hope you might offer some thoughts tomorrow as we are contemplating amendments. to finally begin to express the will of the cart kl one branch. >> i think historically about whether we should be people come

in and say presidential power and article two and know there have been restraints. given the balance of interest in this situation at this moment, given this particular fight could achieve the goal. differently perhaps from the way it has been laid out but without losing the impact or effect. that is different and that avoids having to get into this

specific discussion of all the kind of instances which we are trying to cover. with all genuine effort to try to achieve this goal of getting a maximum is to prework the amendment or to find out if you can come together and get an agreement so that doing itd by consensus we want this, whatever has happened to date. i'm not going to go backwards.

and particularly for the coalition and for isil itself to understand our intent. >> the constitution is quite clear. madison road in the federal papers when describing the congressional authority requirement wrote that the executive branch is the branch most prone to war and therefore we have vested that power in the legislature. i think we have had great leaders in our past.

with the same request, i think this president has been dir elect. to offer this as an amendment to the water bill. there was some someone our side,

but after watching what has happened and watching the mental gymnastics that tries to use an authorization of force that was intended to be used against those who attacked us to say isis has anything to do with them is an absurd notion for why we need to be very careful for example, the administration believes no geographic limit. senator udal brought forth a great example. i will give you a chance to revise your answer. you quickly said of course. medina pledges their ali jins to isis. this will authorize you to bomb that area. is that the message you want to

send to the world that you want it. that's absolutely why i cannot vote they are going to be bombed by the united states. that is a very, very scary and i think a wrong headed message to be tending to the middle east. >> i think there is a responsibility nobody is talking about bomb iing let's limit it, then. senator, that is precisely what

the constitution, you're a student of the constitution and you pride yourself i don't think you should put the lip tagss on the power of the executive. i would council you that no declaration of war has taken place since world war 2. >> i didn't say he came. he did come. it would be a mistake to ask for a declaration of war.

you are sending a message to the middle east. >> that statement is being made without any input or frankly consideration for the limits that the united states of america is currently operating. you need to review that.

>> there is a very important restraint that says congress initiates war. it's very restrained and different in scope. which is why -- let me just -- why we are in favor of an authorization which defines what it is. but this is different.

if you don't look at what they're trying to achieve. >> let me ask you one quick question. you said that there is no problem in our having the language that has zero capacity for american troops on the ground.

many world argue much greater and there you are willing to accept that you would have prohibition on ground forces. but today you are unwilling to accept it. >> are you going let me answer this in full? wha we were asking for in the case of limited authority was entirely focused on degrading his capacity to deliver chemical weapons and sending a limited message.

it had no imposition of the capacity to carry out the mission. now, but that sounded similar to statements you had made about this war.

>> they are all five or four times. he has reiterated it. the decision to use force and thank you to this committee for voting and having made clear congress was moving in that direction, guess what? instead of one or two days of bombing, we've got to deal with russia to get 100% of the weapons out.

that is another moment for the first time in history we have removed all the known declared chemical weapons from a country. and believe me, thanks got we did. >> he doesn't want to be ham strung in every other way with respect to. >> we are concerned about limiting this. >> i understand that. >> i know both of you would like to engage in a debate but i have to get to another member.

>> we thank you for your incredible service. i am one of the few members of congress who voted for the authorization of military force in 2001 and who voted for the authorization of military force in 2002.

that the health care bills would now have risen to over a trillion dollars separate from the trillions spent on those conflicts. so it is from my perspective, we are trying our best as a congress to ensure that we don't

i'm looking at iraq right now, looking for hope. seems to be progress that would make the need obvious in iraq. could you talk a little about that and the homes that you would have? that the sunis which is why both

committed to where we are today. and i know he believes that we will be stronger as a country if we have no with standing the

passion with which you approach this sense of mistakes that may have been made and the open endedness of war, etc., i do believe there are ways to craft this so that it's not open ended and so that there are without getting into something that would be impossible to get that broad vote for. and even to the people we're fighting. i appreciate your focusing on iraq. we were deeply involved from the

moment the president made the comment that we have to know we had a government to work with in order to be able to commit to doing something. we would be in a really difficult situation here. who knows whether isil would have been in baghdad or whether iran would have decided to go further in. but, we became deeply engaged diplomatically and a superb team to help the iraqis be able to make the choices they made and they made them. that took a lot of effort and that opened up the door to the

selection of the president. there were a whole series of events that took place that brought about the change in government. and just last week we were in brusels with a new prime minister speaking to some 60 countries about his efforts to bring people together to recognize that there was no room for the kind of sectarian divide and historically, and other interests, i might add. religious sites and other kinds of thingss. hopefully the militia with whom the current administration is

currently work to try to restrain them for violence and the chiefs can come together with confidence that the military is evolving in a way that together with their concept of a national guard and with new president within the government itself -- our feeling is that the training is coming along importantly, regional efforts are taking place. when we had the meeting which was the beginning of the organization the coalition within the region, the foreign minister promptly stated we will

recognize the new government, open up diplomatic relations and exchange visits. that's happening. the prime minister of turkey visited iraq. the foreign minister visited iraq. so there's a regional shift taking place. undoing the sectarian divide that has taken place. building confidence is going be a long process. it has started. it is having some impact and it has the potential of having a profound impact as well. >> that is what the american people want. they want a diplomatic resolution of this issue among

the people that live in iraq and syria and surrounding companies. they don't want another open ended opportunity for a commitment of another 2.5 million americans into that region. the potential is there. i just think that that debate is the debate that we have to have this time before we go more deeply and i thank you for your great service. >> can i just say that president obama deserves credit. >> we're going to have to synthesize this because we have been here three and a half hours and i still want to get to the next senator. >> president obama deserves credit for having made the decision, which i think was key that he wasn't going to move until they began to make the moves to put a government change in place. i think he deserves credit for

having done that. >> my apologies we have a hearing on the state of civil rights in america that was scheduled that coincided with this i presided and couldn't attend this but i have a good summary of what happened from my staff. some of us vo voted against the invasion of iraq felt that we did the right thing, voting to go after al qaeda, i don't think anybody ep visioned we were voting for the longest war in the history of the united states and that our pursuit would take us into this situation today and apparently some within the administration believe that my vote then was an approval for what we are doing today. whether i agree or disagree today, i think that is a

stretch. to call this an al qaeda operation mr. secretary, what it gets down to is this. mr. secretary has said there will be no ground troops. the administration was quick to correct it and said we have no plans for ground troops. many of us believe we ought to standby the president's statement about no ground troops. our fear is that if we don't, either this president or some future president will drag us into another deep, long lasting bloody almost pointless conflict. i am troubled that that is the new position of the administration to want authority for ground troops. i thought that issue was clear. >> it is. it is absolutely clear. there is nothing that has changed. there is no thought in his hand of using ground troops. >> i object to saying clearly in

our objection to use of military force. >> what is contemplated by that is clearly this notion that we're not going do some big deployment and get involved in an enormous war. you have tried to make that clear. but the issue is can you provide an adequate garn teen for an exception for everything that may or may not arise? there is no effort here to slide or try to change this. not going to be an effort to do that. all we're suggesting is we think there is a capacity to clarify to try to work this through in a way that could bring both sides of this together in a an effort to have a more powerful message in this vote and a clearer aumf.

>> mr. secretary this is important. critically important. it is not just important for those who lives are being risked but it has an importance i think if we do not assert ourselves and our constitutional responsibility, when it comes to this conflict, we are remiss. if we can work out an agreement, fine. if we cannot, we still have a responsibility to pass this authorization. i hope we do it before we leave. >> we have three former members of this committee who are asking for the authorization who agree with skbrou would like to see us do it in a way that gets the vote we talked about. >> final remarks? >> i want to thank you for having the hearing.

i think this is much better than what was contemplated last week. i want to thank the secretary for coming in today and providing some principles that i really believe we can all build on. and i do applaud the president and you for making sure that in iraq we had a different government situation there before we committed and i think that was a good thing. i do want to say again, i think that we can get to a place where there is that broader support i really believe that. i'm going to say something that my friends on this side of the aisle will disagree with. the reason we're here is a total failure of the president to lead on this issue and set something up here. we all want the same thing. we want to authorization the

president to be able to do the things that are necessary to deal with isis. i think we're united there. the reason we're in this cluster, which is where we are, is because the president has not really sought that authorization. today you came closer, not quite all the way through but you came closer to asking for an explicit authorization. came closer. a better approach would be to end up the language. but the one piece that i think is missing by not asking explicitly is we don't have the opportunity to really delve into the strategy of this. we're talking about limitations in writing but one of the things we have not had the opportunity to do and anyone who attended the briefing we had a month ago

with military leadership and others, i don't think anybody left there believing that we understood how we were going to deal with isis. i think there were a lot of gaps that we didn't understand. what is missing is not just the document, but it's also what's missing as when you seek something explicitly, we have the opportunity to probe how you're going to go ahead doing that. we just heard from leaders in the region. i know there is tremendous division over the assad issue. that is the magnet for isis in the first place. i do hope that we will continue. i hope that you will end up language and i hope that we will have the opportunity to understand how we are going go forward. one of the reasons we ended up in a 12 or 13 year war is there wasn't any of this discussion. it didn't happen. it's not just the language.

it's actually understanding how we're going to go about dealing with this and that is a massive missing element. i think he is conducting himself fairly well except for evading the issue of the explicit request. i thank him for the principles. i do look forward to working with you to achieve in spite of all the things that i just said to achieve a more broadly bipartisan support of something that i think we all agree needs to be undertaken. but i don't think you have come to us in a way that is appropriate in making that happen. but i thank the chairman for having us. >> can i just, i'm surprised by that. i want to get a better grade from you, senator. i quote my own testimony -- >> he's a tough grader. >> we ask you now to work closely with us on a bipartisan basis to develop language that

provides a clear signal of support. the authorization should give the president the clear mandate and flexibility he needs to successfully prosecute the armed conflict. we have requested that we work together for aumf. we are requesting an aumf. >> mr. secretary, i look forward to working with you a little more closely. i will grade on a curve. and give you a little bit better attaboy. >> i hope the curve goes up and not down. >> i'm not even going to go there. let me just say that i want to thank you on behalf of all the members. you have a great deal of respect here. i think some of these questions are beyond the role of the secretary of state. and yet you have done a very admirable job of trying to

explain to the committee where we're at, where we want to go and how hopefully we can get there. i certainly continue to welcome as i have for month to try to evolve language that can put the administration in a place that is in sync with the congress. i have no concern about our collective goal. our goal is to defeat isis and i am convinced that we will. i think this hearing has helped us crystallize some of the core issues that are still in difference between the legislative and executive branch and i would hope that we could

find a way to broach them. if we can work from here to thursday to further narrow those, that would be great but there is a majority of committees desire to express themselves on a vote on an authorization of the use of military force. i am going to honor that view. and move forward and we will see where we end up from there. if we don't, then i would actually argue that there should be a broader debate in the senate as well. but in any event we look forward to working with you. this hearing is adjourned.

>> as the 113th committee will

hear testimony on the 2012 ray tack on the consulate there. greg star, the assistant secretary will appear before the committee again. he testified in september as well. he will be encouraging lawmakers to give the state department more funding. >> we will have testimony before the house oversight committee in its entirety at 8:00 p.m. eastern on our companion network on c-span 2. here is some of what johnathan had to say. >> i would like to abjapologizer some of the offending commends i

have made. >> it is never important to make one seem more important or smarter by demeanoring others. i know better and i'm embarrassed and i'm sorry. i would like to clarify some misconceptions about the content and context of my questions. let me be very clear. i do not think that it was passed in a non-transparent way. the structure was roundly debated before the law was passed. reasonable people can disagree about the merits of this policy but it is completely clear that the issues were debated

thoroughly. i would also like to clarify some misperceptions if that were to occur and only in that context, then the only way that states could guarantee that they are citizens would be to set up their own exchange. i have a long standing and well documented belief that health reform legislation in general and the aca in particular must include recommendation for all states to obtain tax credits.

>> and another hearing on obama care and trying to make hay out of a person's comment who was expressing his opinion. >> here are a few of the comments we have recently received from our viewers. >> i am very interested in this program on the american indians. i didn't watch the whole thing. i came in and found it. while i turned the tv on and watched what i could for about an hour and a half to two hours.

this program is absolutely wonderf wonderful. get you a bigger audience by notifying all of the local society societies. >> i love that channel every weekend. i watch it almost religiously. i love all the history of stuff you have. please give us more history programs. history in the sense of, you know, like something before 1950 or 1960. if you want to have these political commentary type things of -- from the, you know, from

the 1970s on, that's fine later but not during the history weekend. and i really love a history lecture lectured or even see it again several months later like today instead of this reaganite that you have on here ranting about how bad the government is. >> i love c-span. i love the non-fiction books and i love when you have and it's the most fun my friend teaches history at a jr. college and i never used to be interested in a whole lot of history. now i am. so thank you very much.

>> and continue to let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us or e-mail us. or you can send us a tweet at c-span comments. >> with military officials and academics discussing the handling of chuck hagel's easies resignation and the legal basis of authorizing use of force. this is an hour and 50 minutes.

>> okay. i think we will try to get started here today. welcome again to all of you. and i think this is probably the 250th seminar he is going to run or some number like that. we have had a few before on the topic today about the military role with terrorism and we will touch on that. on behalf of the ceo and board of regence i want to welcome you. this looks like a particular distinguished group and i am sure they will have a set of interesting messages for us. my opinion is there is never only a military role. it has to be a team effort and

cut across all of the elements of nag nags nags national power and influence. i would ask you to keep that in mind as we hear about this today because we make a big mistake in my opinion when we talk only about the military and only about what can be done and so on and so forth. and clearly, in this kind of environment, there is more than ever a distinct need for what many determine interage and cooperation for working together and acceptance. i will turn it over to the leader. you have got it.

>> thank you, general. i am a soldier. i would like to thank the atomic institute and my colleagues that are here with me. and also those who are not here, but they worked with us for a long time. the centers for national security from west virginia and this gentlemen is a graduate who

came back and i would like to first introduce the panel and then general gray is going to talk for a while. first, we have regular general richard gross from the united states army who is the legal council to the chairman to the joint chief of staff. next is the regular general from the us marine core who is aon the strategy division at the plu institute. and next to him is the political council at the embassy in the united states and formally at the embassy in syria for two years.

and finally of course i mentioned don wallace. now, we welcome, of course, the audience here, the academic, as well as representative of government embassies and diplomat generals and so forth. and we appreciate c-span's effort very much to communicate actually globally and bring the

messages around the world. so we are very grateful for that. and as usual, we try to say one word in terms of the dedication and we will say in honor of the men and women who are serving in the armed forces, combatting terrorism, we have to recall their sacrifice and express sympathy to the families of those who have fallen during the battles. in fact, just a couple days ago, there was a joint united states and yemen raid conducted in yemen. they rescued about, i think, eight hostages but unfortunately they failed to rescue five others including an american, turkish, british and south

african. but this failure is critical and we will discuss it. one more academic footnote before i turn it over to general ray is that he mentioned the seminars we conducted and i would like to mention that we tried to develop academically a project dealing with the run of the military in combating service and this is part of our effort. also, we are dealing with that particular aspect through other partners and weapons of mass destruction and we are co-sponsoring also a blue ribbon study group on bio trends. actually we have a been admitting yesterday with the co-sponsor, the institute, and it is co-chaired by senator joe lieberman and governor tom ridge

and we have other distinguished people participating in that. the general mentioned the number of seminars that we have going on all the way back -- we act of course generals from the united states and many other countries. egypt, israel, turkey, india, pakistan, etc over the years and we are publishing the materials. the most recent event we had was on security just about a month ago dealing with ebola and the role of the military and also combatting terrorism. i say this is about other al-qaeda groups and so forth. so we left some information for you, i think, to look at this particular sign and you will work on, of course, with us about cooperation and we take your advice on the various projects we are involved with. i would like to introduce general gray who needs no

introduction. we are talking about leadership. number one, i would like to mention the book that really should attract the attention of people in the united states and all over the world about the true nature of the military. this is the marine core and we will have speakers in a minute. now, just a little footnote related to general gray and it

would be historical in the sense that i checked to see how can we describe general gray and it isn't easy. of course, there is the formal, i think of the marine core, etc, but i discovered that king phillip of macidonia, the father of alexander the great, he observed about 2400 years ago, and let me be careful saying what he said. and he said and i quote: an army of veer led by a lion and more to be feared than an army of veer led my a deer.

so general gray isn't going to talk about the lion but i will say a great american. now it is all over. >> you just gave your last speech. i apologize that. that wasn't in the script or needed or programmed. and besides i am a relative of gangus con. we will get into the real reason why we are here. he is an interesting guy. he's a graduate of west point and came into the army as an infantry officer because he majored in computer science and that is how they do it in the army. he served in seven years mainly in the airborne organizations and in 1993 he was granted into the business. it is very crucial we have people like the general who have

a very, very good background in matters military and infantry and what soldiering is all about and move into the jag operation as such. within that construct he has been about everywhere with anyone who is anybody in terms of trying to help out with the legal ramifications of what we are involved in. he has been in afghanistan, the central command, he has been everywhere where the action is the loudest, if you will. so it is really a great privilege to introduce you. so take over. >> there are a few traps in there. >> they trained us in that. it's a tremendous honor to be

here. this panel is a little intimidating to be sitting next to such amazing people. and this audience is intimidating. i was getting a little more nervous when yona was introducing general grey, every time he said lion, he looked at general grey, every time he said dear, he looked at me. i'm not quite sure how to take that. [ laughter ] >> i'm not sure. >> you forgot your glasses. all right. well, just the normal speaker's caveat. i am here speaking in my personal capacity. any of the views i say are my views, not necessarily those of the department of defense, the joint chiefs of staffs or the u.s. army. i'm afraid my role will talk a little bit like the military lawyer. i think you're going to get a lot of great perspectives this afternoon on the role of the military. but you invited a lawyer, so you

will yget a lawyer's perspectiv. that's where i focus my efforts. my client, my boss, obviously, is the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. by law, it's his job to give the best military advice to the secretary of defense, to the military counsel and to congress when it comes to taking steps in one of the instruments of military power. it's not just the military that combats militarism. it's our interagency, our intergovernmental. it's our parter ins throughout the world that help us in combatting terrorism. not just the military, but, obviously, today, we're focusing on that. so when it comes to combatting terrorism, my boss, his role is to present to the president.

present military options as a variety of instruments of national power. these are options, mr. president, these are options, mr. secretary, that you can use to take on a particular situation. to solve a particular problem. to combat terrorism, et cetera. and, as part of that, i give him legal advice on those military options. i advise him or whether or not those are legal and my staff reviews those and so forth as part of that -- as part of that process. one of the challenges today is we are seeing a shrinking military in the u.s. as we look at the military instrument of power, in military options, we are in a resource-constrained environment. we are facie ining not only shrg military but glowing challenges. i don't think i've ever seen the level of challenges that we face

today around the world than at any time in my 30 year career, 29 plus year career. as you examine the different options that the military can bring to bear, one of the things that the chairman and the vice chairman and others have begun to think about and present to the secretary and the secretary are the military costs. when you use the military for a lar thing, there's something else you're not doing at the time. by necessity. if there's a brigade combat team that's in afghanistan, that brigade combat team is not in session maintaining their equipment on the rifle range. so there are opportunity costs. if there's a brigade combat team or a squadron or a wing or an air kraft ccraft carrier in a pr part of the world, they're not available for contingencies. they're not available to support our global plans.

so opportunity costs become an important part of the military advice that my boss provides to the secretary and to the president when it comes to considering how to combat terrorism or take on any other number of challenges that we face today. as i advise the chairman, i'm looking at the legal forces. the first thing we always look at is the international legal basis for using force. and there's primarily three. and those of you who are lawyers in the room are very familiar with this. but, typically, to use military force, under international law, you have to have either u.n. security council resolution, you have to have the consent of the nation involved or you have to have a self defense basis, a national self defense basis so as i analyzed a proposed option to combat terrorism, the first

thing we typically look at is an international legal basis, for the action that's proposed. and i advised them on that. perhaps just as kritically or even more critically is the domestic legal basis. what's our domestic legal basis to use military force in response to any other military challenge. the first one that often comes up is article 2 of the constitution. the president has power as the commander in chief to use the military to sustain our national interest. so that's often a solution that can be used for the president to use military force. as many commentators say that we're familiar with, the president's powers at its zenith, if you will, if he acts for use of military force. that's one of the items that you've seen pretty predominantly in the press is there's debate about an authorization for use to military force.

you know as we combat al-qaida and asoeszuated forces of al-qaida and the taliban, we've used the 2001 authorization that congress acted about a week after 9/11. and we also have the 2002 authorization for use of military force that congress enacted to give us the authority to go into iraq, back in 2002. there's a lot of debate today as we look at new threats like isil and as we look at growing al-qaida threats, whether the 2001 aumf is sufficient to meet those. whether there should be new aumfs and what should be done by congress to sustain the current fight against isil. those debates are not mine to take up. i'm a military lawyer. i provide military advice to the chairman.

what i can do is provide to the chairman things that would make a good aumf. so i kind of offer that up to you today. not as what should congress do or what should the president do, but what do i look for as a military lawyer when i look at an aut riization for the use of military force. and as you start to consider and aumf, and that's what we call it, an aumf, an authorization for use military force. between flexibility for the commander and the president and transparency and clarity. so what do i mean by that? if you tell me that i can go after al-qaida in the arabian peninsula in an aumf, if you tell me that's the group that i can go after, then that's a lot of clarity. that's a lot of transparency. but it may not have the flexibility for other groups as they pop up, as we've seen. so if i change the statute and

say you can go after al-qaida and associated forces, that gives a commander, that gives the president more flexibility. but there's less transparency. there's less clarity. we now have to determine what's an associated force. as we examine an aumf, there's always a balance, i think, between clarity and transparency on one side and flexibility on the other. and those are necessarily at tension. and, again, something for policymakers&congress and cong decide. but it's something as you consider an aumf to think about. now, typically, as a lawyer, i look for certain things in a statute that gives me, that i can advise my commander, my chairman, my client on, here's what you have authority on. these are things that could be written into a new aumf and, if you modified an aumf, could be used to kind of do the thinking about that particular statute.

so, first of all, who's the enemy. against whom am i authorized to use force. and so you know in the current 2001 aumf, you moe know we can force. that's kind of the analysis that we do. a an aumf is what we're aut rised to do. the next is what is my mission? what am i to do under that particular statutory authority. is it full combat? or is it something less than that. and tell me that in a statute. now, we've seen debate in the press -- or in congress and the press and other places about with what means should forest be used. and you've seen, for example, system of the proposals in the current fight in iraq and syria, you've seen proposals for should we limit wha means can be used in a fight. and, again, as you think through

those, there's a trade aif between flexibility and transparency and clarity. and so things to think about. another component that could be in an aumf is a geographic limitation. where can force be -- where may force be used? where should be e force be used. and so the current 2001 aumf gave authority, essentially, had no geographic limits. had no certainly other provisions of international law that limit your ablt to use it. but, within the statute itsz, no limitation mpblt e. and you could have a time limit on any aumf. the current the e 2001 and umf to 2002 iraq aumf. neert contains a time li