peter'sburg rush yafment he's at the group 20 economic summit sand expected to talk about in syria. it wants to u.n. to present a risk analysis of that scenario. if it gets a formal request it will consider their argument. >> we talked to a reporter on "washington journal" about that situation. >> what's on the agent da for the president this morning? >> a formal arrival ceremony. a working meeting of the g 20. and then tonight a working dinner. in between that he will have one on one meeting with japanese prime minister. earlier this week president obama spoke with him by phone and i would expect to hear a

japanese endorsement of action against syria today. >> yesterday the senate foreign relations committee voted 10- 7 to advance the military plan for syria. >> it gives them a little bit of momentum although the vote was closer than the white house wanted. they were hoping for a bigger margin. it may be notable the secretary sent out a note but we didn't hear from the president himself. that does give him a little bit of momentum with the world committee this week. >> he said it's not my credibility on the line, it's the international community's. what was he hoping to accomplish by delivering that line. >> you don't want to be alone on these kind of strikes. the united nations has been skeptical and there was a feeling president obama was

isolated on this issue this week. he's trying to put it back on the the international community. we have proof that syria used commem cal weapons and it's time for the international community to set up. so he's looking for allies before he does something that ould be risky and have unintended consequences. >> >> who can he count on to give him some kind of endorsement about going forward in syria. >> he has two bilateral meetings tomorrow. that's th france so one international ally and the president of china. china has been more skeptical nd has been on syria's side in past dissputes so i'm not sure

he's going to get much help there. he got an endorsement from the swedish prime minister yesterday. he's looking for as many friend as he can get before any military is taken. >> he is not meeting with vladimir putin, he cancelled that meeting. but could there be some sort of sandoff between the two. >> yes. there are bound to run into each other and president putin is the host this year. so there is little doubt at some point they will meet on the side lines of the g-20. i expect them to talk and i expect syria will be one of the topics. >> do you expect there be some awkward moments between the two? >> yes, it's not a very comfortable relationship. there is some friction there

and it's been heightened by syria and the edward snoweden case. they have to deal with each other. there is an interesting wrink that will came out of the weden meeting yesterday. his family asked the obama administration for russian help to find out what happened to mr. wallenburg. they have a lot to talk about. it's obvious the two leaders will meet over the next couple of days. >> there are tensions with other leaders as well. e n.s.a. program, brazil and mexico about reports they are being spied on as well. will the president address those concerns with those leaders? guest: brazil has complained about it as well. i'm sure that topic will come

up as well. it came up yesterday. that was the first question president obama was asked by a swedish reporter. he said we're only looking for possible terrorist links and not listening to anybody's phone calls. a lot of other countries have complained about the program because it involves spying on other countries. another thing president obama said and he repeated yesterday is other countries engage in this activity including some countries protesting the u.s. program. i fully expect some world leaders to talk to president obama about the surveillance programs. host: this is day two of a three day trip. does he remain there. what happens on day three? guest: tomorrow he'll have meetings with leaders of france and china and another working session and a closing ceremony. and president obama will have a st. conference tomorrow in

peter'sburg. i don't know how many questions he plans to take. a lot of issues will surface again then. host: do you think the president will have something to come home with from the international community, something he can say to help on convince law makers up capital hill? guest: he's hoping to get as many endorsements as he can. i think france will support military action. he's got help from sweden. i suspect other countries may want to weigh in on syria so he's hoping to get as many countries as he can to sign off on this. host: thank you for your time this morning. chill -- capitol hill the

senate meeting behind closed doors and c-span is outside the room for any updates that come from committee members. house is hosting a separate meeting on syria and we will bring you reactions from that briefing also. this afternoon c-span will be live at the brookings institution for reaction on the syrian attack last month. panelists will include former government and officials, analyst and other middle east experts. that's at 3eck eastern on c-span. at 7:00 eastern we want to hear what you think about how your representative or senator should vote on the issue. you can join by phone or

twitter, facebook. >> yesterday trfs a vote to authorize u.s. military action in syria. the resolution limits action to 60 days with the ability to extend if they use chemical weapons again. the measure passed 10-7. the resolution will head to the full senate and may come into session tomorrow for the filing of that resolution which would clear it for a vote next week. we're going to show you yesterday's senate hearing discussion on prior to the vote. it lasted about an hour and 45 minutes.

 >> the committee has rules gainst electronic games. > this meeting of the senate foreign relations committee will come to order. in the last you days, the committee has come together in a spirit of bipartisanship and rafted a resolution to authorize the use of limited

military force in syria that i believe can achieve bipartisan support. there will be obviously through our process here on the committee, an amendment process, but it is my expectation that we will be able to achieve the goals largely set out by the resolution. i appreciate the spirit in which all members have come to this issue. this is one of the most weightiest issues that any memorable cast a vote on. we come to it seriously and committed to getting the facts and coming to their respective conclusions. i want to thank senator corker for being a close partner in making the resolution tailored and focused so that it reflects the general sentiment and will of the majority of the committee. i believe the interests of the merican people, it gives the

president the authority that he needs to respond to syria's use of chemical weapons against its own people. this is an authority he has asked for and it is an authority that we believe we have tailored in such a way that it meets those goals but also the concerns of members of the committee. we have developed language that we believe appropriately narrows the scope, duration and readth of the campaign to meet oncerns. i want to thank all of our colleagues who have engaged, sometimes very passionately, including senator mccain on

this issue, for helping the committee and the nation focus its attention on the importance of what we are doing. this is a tightly tailored or specified authorization to give the president necessary and appropriate authority to use military force against the syrian government to protect the national security interest of the united date and our partners and degrade syria's capacity to use those weapons in the future. that the united states has a specific military plan to achieve the goal of responding to the use of weapons of mass destruction by the syrian government, and that the use of military force is consistent with protocols of u.s. strategy toward syria including achieving a negotiated settlement to the conflict. it has the limitation specifying that the resolution does not authorize the use of the united states armed forces on the ground in syria for the purpose of combat operations to nsure that there be no boots on the ground. the authorization would end after 60 days with the

president having the authority to request and certify another 30 days and congress having the power to pass a resolution of disapproval. it provides united strategy for syria including a copper hence of review of economic and military policy toward syria. it requires a report to congress on the status of those military operations. let me thank senator corker and all the members of the committee for working together in the interest of the american people. o respond to this challenge, i believe it is a declaration of our values. it sends a clear message that the world cannot and will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons anywhere. with that, let me turn to my colleague and ranking member, senator corker or his statement. >> mr. chairman, i thank

you. i want to thank you for your patience. or especially the briefing that we had this morning where obviously some themes were developed. in particular, through the line of questioning that took place -- i want to thank all the ommittee members for the humility but also the thoughtfulness that everyone as approached this issue with. in particular, i want to stress my appreciation to senator mccain and senator coons who i think were able to grasp the essence of developing themes hat are going to further the

markup in a very positive way. with that, thanks to all members, i have had plenty of time to be heard. i would rather defer. i know we have some members that may have only a short period of time with us. we are somewhat filibustering as we wait for language to be developed that encompasses the discussions taking place. with that, after chairman, thanks for bringing us to this place. >> all right. think you, senator corker. we are trying to logistically get to where we are at. i would entertain amendments of that seek to be offered to the resolution, senator paul. >> i commend the president for doing his constitutional duty and bringing before the congress and asking for the authority to go to war. i think it should be made very explicit that this is his constitutional duty and that we are bound by the constitution, bound by the ideas of the founding fathers. it was very explicitly presented by james madison in the federalist papers that the executive branch is the branch of government most prone to war and therefore, the constitution vested the power to go to war

in congress. some would say this isn't a war, this bombing is not a war. sailors and ships are not war. that we only define war when there are boots on the ground. i think that would be an absurdly narrow definition of war. this will indeed be a war. hopefully it won't include casualties on our side. we should make a pretense about getting involved in a war. the president when he ran for office said that no president should unilaterally go to war without the authority of congress. many paid lip service to this, but this is a chance to vote for whether or not you believe this to be true. this will be a senate resolution that reads that the president does not have the power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. i submit it for recorded vote if i may. >> senator mccain.

>> mr. chairman, first i would like to applaud senator paul's active participation in this issue. respect very much his zeal in trying to make sure that the respective authority of ongress and the president is preserved. i think what senator paul amendment brings up is something that i hope this ommittee will start to work on and that is the war powers act. in a little bit of contrast to what senator paul's interpretation of the constitution is, the war powers

act, the president can act but has to come back to congress within 60 days. no president has ever agreed that that is constitutional and yet they have observed it. i think what senator paul's amendment brought up is this whole issue of constitutionality of when the resident can take us to war, what the role of congress is, and how we address that very transcendently important issue that i think is a distorted balance between the congress and the president. i thank senator paul for his amendment even though i may not agree with it. he really does bring an mportant issue that we need -- it is wrong for a law to be on the books and every president of the united states saying it is not constitutional. if every president thinks it is unconstitutional, challenge it in court. they haven't. i thank senator paul for his amendment. >> one of the things that i think is misunderstood about

the war powers act is that the war powers act does allow the president to take action in three specific cases. one, if a war has been cleared by congress. two, if there has been statutory approval under use of authorization of force. hird is imminent attack. it doesn't give unlimited power o the president to authorize military force. we can debate whether it is constitutional or not but under the war powers act those are the only three ways you can o. the press and the media and everybody misinterprets the war

owers act to be 60 days and he has to report. that is true but that is not he beginning of the act. that is one part of the act. >> could i just say to my friend in response, the third provision is what is not clear. we are about to enact a statutory act. i don't think it is quite as clear as senator paul -- >> senator durbin. >> mr. chairman, this is an important proposal by the senator from kentucky. we should take it

seriously. the most awesome responsibility that we have as members of congress is the constitution. i would like to suggest to him that we take care in the language that we use and that we use the exact language of the war powers resolution as opposed to the which which you have added here. i think it will create some ambiguity if we put in a new standard. let me be specific. at the end of your amendment, you say does not involve, and you use the words, stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. the war powers act says, a national emergency created by attack on the united states or its territories or armed forces. if you would consider that as a friendly amendment to use the exact language of the war powers resolution which you referred to indirectly, i think we would be on more solid ground. >> yes, i would be very happy to. >> senator rich. >> mr. chairman, first of all, senator mccain is right. this is an important debate probably for another day. i submit an amendment. i see we haven't got it here. i think maybe i can make this simpler. if you go to page three and go to the third last line where it ays the word constitution. where is the president has authority under the constitution, that is where the rub is. the argument is to whether or not he has authority. i would suggest that we take

out the word constitution and state instead that whereas the president has authority under the war powers resolution of 1973. that will incorporate the exact language as suggested by enator durbin. i think it also, senator paul, gets us exactly where you and i want to be as far as our belief as to what the power of the president is. >> senator mccain. >> i like senator rick's point. that is a good one. this war powers issue is one i am obsessed about. senator mccain and i have talked and i hope we will address it. the debate we have had a last couple of days demonstrate the important of it. here is the challenge. i hope you will tell me i am wrong on this.

i just read an ap report about your stated intention to filibuster a vote on the syria resolution if it hit the senate floor. it is hard to praise the president for bringing something to congress for a vote and then say you were going to try to filibuster to deny me the right to vote about it on the floor of the senate. >> misinterpretation from the media. >> i am just reporting what the ap is reporting. i would hope that if we are going to encourage the president to bring these matters to congress that we don't use procedural tricks to block congress from being able to vote on these matters. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator corker. >> i want to thank the senator from kentucky for bringing this up and say that senator kaine has wanted to address this issue. i think a process might begin with looking at the authorization for the use of military force in general. i know we have one specific to syria right now and we have lots of other activities that are taking place around the world. i know there have been discussions about trying to address that.

build into the place of dealing with the war powers resolution in general. i thank him for bringing it to us today. i hope that we don't do anything today that takes away from our ability to pass something on the committee. >> let me just say that the chair appreciates senator paul's commitment and passion on this issue. i think that the issue is so significant to place into question the constitutionality of what the president does and does not have, and this particular context, is not timely. it deserves, including something that the ranking member has been pursuing for a while which is a debate and consideration of what

authorization of military force looks like more broadly than in the context of syria, that would be an appropriate debate and hopefully a discussion in getting some key witnesses ere. i cannot support, and the context of this resolution, to make weighty determinations even though it may be a sense of congress on the constitutionality of this particular set of issues in this timeframe. i would have to oppose the amendment. senator udall. >> thank you, chairman menendez. let me just say -- i know the issue of whether or not we put it in here is one that is pending and the chairman feels strongly about it. i am very proud of the congress. the way it has stepped forward

and asserted its authority. we had at last count several hundred members sign a letter to specifically asked the president to not go forward and bring this to congress. to me, that is recognizing a new era in terms of congress rather than sitting back, actually saying, we are going to exercise our right under the constitution. the constitution specifically says, as senator paul has put in here, that the power to declare war is with the legislative branch, not with the executive branch. we have heard a lot of statements about whether or not the president can move forward regardless of this amendment. i think it is important to have this in here. i would applaud him and i hope that we have entered a new era where congress will assert its power under the constitution when we get into situations like this. so i would support the amendment if we get the

opportunity to have a vote on it. thank you. >> any other members? senator rubio has not had an opportunity. >> this is an important issue regarding the role of congress in setting foreign policy and in particular it power to make war. i want to understand the amendments in the context of history. i think one that reflects what is being discussed here is an engagement when president reagan decided to launch a limited strike in libya. how does this reconcile with president reagan's decision in 1986 or grenada which involve ground troops, and operation of that magnitude? >> when you look at this and you look at a war powers act, his doesn't do anything beyond what the war powers act

says. it does reiterate what the war powers act says. as has been discussed, there is some disagreement. some people don't think what we are getting ready to commence with is war. some people think the lesser the military attack, the less of a war it is. the constitution doesn't differentiate between big wars and small wars. it does differentiate in the war powers act between defensive action and an action that doesn't have some sort of immediate threat. i don't think either of the cases you mentioned, there was an immediate right to the united states. i think these are open to interpretation but what is not open to interpretation is an event like what we have now, whether or not the congress should have to give authorization. >> it is interesting we are aving this debate on a request

by the president for us to act under the war powers resolution. i think senator mccain is correct. this is a subject that the president and congress -- it is a debate we should have in congress. i am a strong supporter of the war powers act. i think presidents should adhere to the powers. i think the resolution that we have here is properly drafted. it says where the president has authority under the constitution. the president's responsibility to carry out laws passed by congress. we have already covered this. there is a specific reference to the war powers in this constitution. we are not going to be able to resolve in this committee the long-standing dispute between the executive and legislative and judicial branches of government as to how the exercise of force is authorized and implemented.

i would urge us to stick to the issue at hand. this is one of the most challenging and difficult decisions for members to make on the authorization of force. it is heart wrenching. consequences of the use of force -- i think we shouldn't try to deal with the overall issues of authorization generally, which requires far more discussion. >> any other members? >> mr. chairman, i agree with enator cardin that the resident has asked for authority under the war powers authorization. as a result of that, we ought to be clear here that that is what we are responding to. we have the word constitution in here and that is what causes the disagreement among parties. i would respectfully request we just take out the word constitution and accept what everybody agrees to, and that is that this is under the war

powers resolution of november 7, 1973. if you put that in here, we can move on with the merits of it. as senator cardin correctly stated, this has been wrestled with by every branch of government. there is no resolution at this point. i am worried that if we put this in here, somebody is going to say, he is going to interpret that to be that this power is under the constitution, not the war powers resolution. >> i think that clause is beyond the authorization concluded in this bill. it is not in regards to chemical weapon used by syria. >> again, i come back too, we ought to get this behind us and get onto the merits of the thing. you don't even need this word.

whereas is superfluous and it is causing a fight that we don't need to have. we are arguing about specific language of a whereas that we don't need in there. you can resolve this by changing the word constitution to work powers resolution. >> senator paul's amendment is broader than that specific ote. i will give you the final word before we go to vote. >> what i would say is there never seems to be a good time to debate. this is a very good time to debate this. the nation is looking at us, asking us what we believe with regard to what our role is, what congress's role is. this is precisely the time to do it. what i would also say, is this precisely comes up because the president has been asked point blank, the secretary of state

has been asked on at least two or three occasions what would happen if congress puts you down. are you going to stand by the authority of congress to make this decision? they have hedged. the vote is a very important vote because this is about -- like i have said to secretary kerry, you are probably going o win. the thing is, we need to be very clear that by coming, he is seeking congressional authority. he must abide by it. you shouldn't get it both ays. we should say we are either for congressional authority or not. this is a great issue. it is a perfect time to talk about it. it is a perfect time to take a tance. thank you. >> i appreciate the senator's remarks. the issue is weighty and important, but not to be done

in this context. i assume the senator is asking or a vote. his request is put forward. i am going to move to table the amendment because it is an expression -- from my view, this is an important issue that hould be held. right now, it is much greater than the issue that is before us. will move to table. the clerk will call the oll.

inaudible] >> mr. rubio? >> aye. >> mr. johnson? >> no. >> mr. mccain? inaudible]

>> mr. paul? >> nomr. chair? >> aye. 14 aye, 5 nay. the amendment is taken. enator mccain. >> mr. chairman, i have two amendments. i move that they considered together since they are inextricably related. i would like to describe these amendments. would like to thank senator coons -- this amendment is beyond -- on behalf of myself and senator coons. i thought this morning's session that was held was a

very excellent ability for all of us to not only hear from the administration but to get a lot of questions answered and i appreciate you holding those. i thank you and senator corker for the hard work that you have done on this legislation. i think it may be one of the most important pieces of legislation that this committee will consider and i thank you and senator corker for your eadership. both of these amendments have to do with the issue of changing the battlefield situation in syria. the president of the united states has articulated three basic policy measures that he advocates. one, is to degrade the chemical

weapons capabilities of bashar al-assad. two, to give greater support to the syrian army and those who re seeking to prevail. third, a change in the battlefield to switch the momentum which presently thanks to 4000 hezbollah, russian equipment being flown in every day, iranian assistance, the momentum is on the part of bashar al-assad. if we expect them to leave power, it would be because that situation is reversed and he believes that he cannot prevail. so what these two amendments do s state -- i will quote.

it is a policy of the united states to change the momentum on the battlefield in syria so as to create a favorable condition for a negotiated settlement that ends the conflict and leads to a democratic government in syria. a conference of u.s. strategy in syria should aim as part of a coordinated effort to degrade the capabilities of the assad regime to use weapons of mass destruction. this requires an amendment to start with that we basically replace part of the legislation as it is presently written and replace it with the following statement, whereas on may 21 2013, the foreign relations committee passed by a 15-3 vote a serious transition support act which founded the president's goal of assad leaving power an end and to the iolence, are prerequisites for

a stable democratic future for syria and peace in the region. sufficient incentives do not yet exist for the achievement of such goals. i might add, that entire act was passed by a 15-3 vote here in the foreign relations committee and is presently on the calendar. i hope my colleagues will appreciate that this is really important, that we are on record, that we want to change the military equation on the battlefield. i think any observer, all of us included, would agree that unless bashar al-assad believes that he is going to lose, it would be impossible for him to negotiate a peaceful settlement

and departure from syria. i would like to ask my colleague senator coons, if you don't mind, to make remarks. i hope my colleagues will consider this amendment. >> senator coons. >> thank you. i think this offers a clarification. nothing about this adds to the scope of the authorization. nothing about this amendment adds to the scope of the authorization for the use of force. it does point the rest of our colleagues do valuable work that was done on this committee and that currently sits waiting for the consideration on the floor. it considered a wide range of factors and concerns in place. i want to draw your attention to the point of that is made

here that our overall policy is a negotiated resolution. an international effort to degrade the capabilities of the assad regime to use weapons of mass destruction, to change the momentum on the battlefield, to change the momentum on the battlefield in order to encourage a negotiated a lyrical settlement to the civil war. i think that is worth restating. i would be grateful for this part of my colleagues. >> any other colleagues who wish to speak to this? senator murphy. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think it goes without saying that this does fundamentally alter the nature of this authorization. it combines the authorizing resolution that we passed several months ago with the underlying legislation that we have been debating. it does so in a statement of policy that says for the first time that congress, but passage of this act, supports the

president's efforts which have been reported in open sources over the past several months, arming with both lethal and nonlethal capabilities, the vetted elements of the syrian opposition. i would note that in that authorization that we passed several months ago which i did not support, we were very careful to attach to that resolution and authorization, some pretty carefully thought-out conditions and controls. that would go along with the president's new authority to arm the syrian rebels. by stating today that it is the policy of the united states government endorsed by the congress to do that, we drop all of that work that we have previously done. i know this is not the same thing as authorizing legislation but i do think that this is a fairly substantial change. i think it will take some people by surprise, particularly in the house of representatives as this goes

forward. i appreciate the fact that many members of the committee have been calling upon the president to do this for every long time. this committee has spent an enormous amount of time talking about this issue of arming the vetted elements of the syrian opposition. it is not a debate that this full senate has had or that has been conducted in the full house. i would argue it may complicate discussion on this forward. >> senator corker. >> i just want to thank senator mccain for being such an advocate, for having a coordinated strategy. i don't think there is any committee that has spent more time trying to press that issue. i want to thank senator coons for trying to continually ensure that things that we do we do in a way that accomplishes an and. i thank them both for capturing a theme through the question

that they and others asked this morning. i will say, i think the administration very much supports as secretary kerry said this morning, a further affirmation of these policies in an integrated way. i look forward to wholeheartedly supporting their amendment. >> any other colleague? i will be supportive of the amendment and i want to congratulate both of them for coming together and particularly senator mccain for his stalwart advocacy towards this and senator coons who has been an advocate of a broader serious strategy. the first amendment is part of a whereas clause. what it does is restate what this committee has already done in a vote of 15-3.

in that respect, amendment number one is just a restatement of that fact which exist but it is an important fact. on amendment number two, it is a statement of policy but it is largely a statement of policy that the administration itself has verbalized and ultimately, in the statement of policy, it creates an understanding that this is our ultimate policy. but it does nothing in terms of as senator coons said to alter the scope of authorization in which that authorization unlike these. transition support act would have specific provisions. i think it is an important

statement. it moves us to a broader syria strategy which i commend both senators for. something that has largely been accepted by and voted on by this committee. i would be supportive of both amendments. is there anyone else who wishes to speak on the amendment? if not, senator mccain? >> if it is agreeable to i ould ask for a voice vote. >> the voice vote has been asked for. all those in favor will say aye. the ayes have it, both amendments are agreed to. is there anyone else who wishes to offer an amendment on the democratic side? senator cardin.

>> i was going to offer an amendment with regards to the use of ground troops that make it clear that the authorization does not authorize the use of american soldiers in syria. the language here is clear. it does say that the restrictions include the limitation of use of the united states armed forces on the ground in syria for the purposes of combat operations. i was concerned about the language, combat operations. as a result of hearing the committee has held, i am confident that there is no soldier being asked to go into syria as a result of this authorization and i understand that will be made extremely clear in our committee report. there is always the unexpected -- i certainly understand that

-- but our authorization was clear that there will be no ground troops in syria. i will not be offering the amendment. >> and you, senator cardin. i assure you that the committee report will have language that makes it clear that the anguage that is in the resolution is for its stated purpose. i would be happy to work with him to make sure that language is something that he finds supportive. is there any other member that wishes to make an amendment? senator coons. >> this amendment simply expands on the required elements for inclusion in the syria strategy reports. it amends section 5b and inserts additional provisions within the broader serious strategy report. it has a section regarding security coordination with

allies and regional partners including israel, jordan and turkey. it has a section on planning for securing the existing chemical, biological and other weapons supplies in syria. last, it adds a section that the policy address efforts regarding the ongoing humanitarian challenges presented by 2 million syrian refugees in neighboring countries and 4.5 million internally displaced persons in syria. report that we anticipate from the administration as part of this authorization. i would hope for a voice vote. >> chair is supportive of the senator's amendment. it is a valuable addition to he resolution. any other members wish to speak to it? >> i thank him for a ontribution. i plan to support it

wholeheartedly. >> senator asked for a voice vote. all those in favor will say aye. all those opposed will say nay. the ayes have it. senator durbin. >> and amendment i have been orking on that addresses a practical situation. nder the proposal before us, the president if this is enacted into law, after ubmitting certification to congress has 60 days to exercise his authority under this proposal. he can extend that another 30 days with another certification to congress unless congress disapproves. hypothetical situation, if this became law and the president implemented it on september 15, then he would have until

november 15 to use that period of time. the question is, what happens on the 91st day? what if assad decide then that he will use chemical weapons again? will we would turn to congress again to start the debate again? senator mccain and i have worked on the line which. i don't believe it is ready at this moment. it does leave open the possibility that we ought to consider. i wanted to raise that for the committee. i won't be offering the amendment. i asked senator mccain if you would like to make a comment. >> i think my colleague from illinois. there is a perception problem here that can be created that we need to avoid. that is that we will take this vigorous action until the 91st today and then bashar al-assad

is able to resume his atrocities with chemical weapons. obviously, none of us believe that. none of us agree with it. we are kind of working to try to find a way to give everybody confidence that at any time if bashar al-assad uses chemical weapons again, that the united its of america will act. we don't have to go through -- we don't want to go through the authorization and debate on the floor etc. at the same time, the dilemma that we face is that we don't want to give an open-ended kind of authority to the president of the united states either. we would solicit the input of all members as to how we can address the perception created by this issue, but at the same time, reserve the legitimate role that the congress plays in determining these issues. i thank my friend from illinois

and i hope that all my colleagues will continue to work together. by the time this legislation reaches the floor, perhaps we could have some kind of consensus on it. >> mr. chairman. >> senator durbin. >> i would like to offer durbin amendment number two. >> before you do that, if i may comment on the amendment that you withheld on. the chair appreciates the concerns that have been raised. i have prepared an amendment in this regard to bring us closer to ensuring that assad understands that he can't wait out the time. , go back to chemical weapons and go face no consequence or it we are getting closer and closer to a language that would find both the restraint and the opportunity, but i think it would be worthy of working

collectively with everyone who has an interest in this as we move towards the floor. the chairman withheld his amendment as well and appreciates the comments of my colleagues as we try to work towards something that meets that challenge. senator durbin. >> mr. chairman, i have two amendments. one of these i raised earlier when we had an informal meeting. the use of the word, limited and tailored has stumped me from the start. i hope i am not nitpicking here. i don't think that this is the right word. i am told that even the president has used the word. i hope that we would instead say that we are dealing with authorizing the limited and specified use of the united states armed forces against syria. i have looked up the word tailored. there is no definition that comes close to what we are trying to do. i think the word specified

makes it clear that what we are trying to achieve, we are limiting what the president can do and specifying what the president can do. that is my amendment number one. i can take a voice vote on this. >> is there anyone else who wishes to be heard on this amendment? the chair believes it achieves the goal we are trying to achieve. all in favor will say aye. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed on. >> i think -- on behalf of the committee, there is one section that troubles me. it is on page four, paragraph one. keep in mind what we are doing here is spelling out the authority of the president of the united states to use military force for specified purposes. we are specific in paragraphs two and three, to deter syria's use of such weapons. to degrade syria's capacity to use such weapons in the

future. the first paragraph troubles me. it is open-ended. instead of specificity about the purpose for the use of force, it says, respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction of the government of syria in the conflict in syria. that to me is as general and wide-open as you could write it. i think it really belies the rest of this effort and what we are trying to achieve. i am troubled by that reference to respond, which i think is open-ended. i am also concerned, this came up in closed session, with another element that was not included in the original white house draft. the original draft included the following, prevent or deter the use or proliferation, and this is the important language. including the transport to

terrorist roots or other state and nonstate actors of chemical or biological weapons. this is something we are genuinely concerned about. not just that assad might transfer the chemical weapons, but at that moment when he is out of power, that the transfer be taking place as well. what i have included in taking out the generalized respond paragraph, is the specific language that says the president is authorized to use military force to prevent he transferred to terrorist groups within syria of any weapons of mass destruction, etc. >> where would we -- is there any other member who wishes to e heard on this? >> mr. chairman. >> senator johnson. >> first of all, i appreciate

senator durbin's proposed amendment. this is similar to what i was trying to accomplish with my own amendment where i had a fourth point, to secure and prevent the transfer of chemical weapons tockpiles. i would like to ask senator durbin, i believe this encompasses about the same thing. i am very supportive because i believe one of the primary reasons if not the primary reason that the events in syria pose a national security threat to the unit is its is those chemical weapons stockpiles and those possibly being transferred to enemies of the united dates. i would like to work with you and be assured that this does the exact same thing that i was trying to do with my amendment.

i would like to work with you and be assured that this does the exact same thing that i was trying to do with my amendment. >> i think we are on the same track. the testimony we heard in this room was that the french have analyzed the situation and believe that assad has 1000 tons of chemical agents and weapons including several hundred tons of sarin. he may be in the chemical weapons world, a superpower. we don't want him to use those within his own country but we also don't want him to put those on the block or transfer them to enemies of the united states. i think we are on the same track. >> let me also say, my amendment maybe goes further. in section three, where we limit the authorization and use -- basically no boots on the ground for the purpose of combat operations, i do accept as required under my authorization. basically, recognizing that if the president has to secure those weapons, that that would

require ground troops. >> i think you are into a new territory there. >> possibly, but i think your language implies the same thing. >> let me turn to senator corker. >> first of all i want to thank both of you for bringing this issue up. i wonder if we might resolve the concern that each of you have by, under section two, paragraph a, article one, where it says respond, if we can insert, respond in a limited manner. and then, use language that senator durbin has drafted as the fourth section of this, the fourth article down at the bottom. leave out the part including chemical, biological weapons or components used in such weapons, so that you have a fourth portion that says, prevent the transfer to terrorist groups or other actors within syria of any weapons of mass destruction, so

we hit the point that the two of you are trying to address and we are limiting the response that senator durbin is concerned, may be too broad. >> i asked the senator from tennessee what he envisions by that phrase, respond in a limited manner. >> what i envision is that we would respond in a limited manner. i don't know if i can clarify. i know that you're trying to tighten and i appreciate that very much. a big portion of our time has been to make this specified. i do think, on the other hand, the essence of what we are doing here is in response to what is happening with weapons of mass destruction. i guess i am trying to address both needs here. >> the only thing i would say to

the senator from tennessee is, everything i have imagined in my mind that we do with military force could not be characterized as limited. it is going to be a powerful response by our country to what we view as a danger to the people of syria, to the world. i don't want to get lost in the language here. i think this is a friendly amendment you are offering, but that respond in a limited manner, it still leaves me uncertain as to what we are trying to say. >> if i may, senator durbin, what is the preface here is the president is authorized subject to this subsection to use the armed forces of the united states as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in a limited and specified manner against legitimate military targets in syria only to respond

to the use of weapons of mass destruction by the government of syria. what is it, i am trying to grasp, what is it about the language there that is troublesome to you? >> compare the other two paragraphs, two and three. deter the use of weapons of mass three, the great capacity to use such weapons in the future. capacity to use such weapons in the future. it is linked to the use of weapons of mass destruction. respond, i think is so generic and so general that it can include any military action which would be a response, but it is not a response limited to the future use of this weapons. >> what if that first paragraph were to read, only to deter and degrade the use of weapons of mass destruction by the

government of syria? >> that would be repetitive but it wouldn't be inconsistent. >> if you could accept that. >> i can accept that if we can add the fourth paragraph that senator corker has talked about and senator johnson and i discussed, the prevention of transport of these weapons to terrorist groups. >> do you need the entire phrase stated, or is it good enough to prevent the transfer to terrorist groups -- >> i think that is sufficient. the language i have goes on to explain that but you use weapons of mass destruction. yours is sufficient. >> i appreciate the concern that you have, senator durbin. this is the core of the

authorization in this particular language. i want to make sure that we get it right. would the senator withhold on this with a commitment from me to work with them in a leadership to deal with this? i assume there will be at some point a manager's package or a replacement of this. i get what you want to do and i am in sympathy, i just want to make sure we do not undermine the core of the authorization we are trying to achieve. >> as an alternative, if we leave paragraph one untouched, where it says respond, with the possibility that we will have a manager's amendment, but add preventing the?

transfer of these weapons. >> that would be something that would be acceptable. we would leave paragraph one as is and we would add a paragraph four where we would say prevent the transfers of terrorist groups. >> i accept that. >> i will agree with the compromise, but i would hope that includes looking at the language. this is too broad. every time the president has been asking for this power -- i would hope what we could look at that language and i am confident the leadership will take a look senator durbin is in the leadership. [laughter] >> that helps.

>> i am committed to working with the senator. for now, this would help us to get to a responsible place. senator durbin, your amendment would be amended to say, add a paragraph four under section 2a that would read, prevent the transfer to terrorist groups of any weapons of mass destruction. >> mr. chairman, this is very i would to my amendment. like to tack on -- there would be a d, making the same point. 5e.is under section 2b.

to make the exact same point. it repeats the authorization. i would also note, be helpful in responding to the use of weapons. i've listened to the administration and they have been talking about holding the assad regime accountable. that is the first goal. you may want to consider that. i think you need -- preventing the transfer in two different places. if we could get that, i would be satisfied not to offer my amendment. >> i am sorry, staff was in my ear. i am trying to make sure we get

this language straight. could you tell me specifically what you want to add on? >> we are adding a paragraph four to section 2 -- according to the durbin amendment, we would use the exact same language under b5-d is what we would add. >> mr. chairman, i have no objection to that. >> it would be a restatement. >> if the u.s. has a military plan to achieve the specific goals of preventing the transfer that is a goodns.

amendment. >> i will withdraw my amendment if that is the case. >> i think that is acceptable. any other member who wishes to speak? >> i want to make sure this authorization is narrow and specific. his concerns about a1 were well- founded and the amendment he has offered makes sense. our ultimate goal is a negotiated resolution. >> i agree. mr. chairman, i think senator johnson would like to cosponsor the durbin amendment. >> we have the durbin amendment as amended by senator durbin to have paragraph four and further amended by senator johnson as

per suggestions made to put that in 5d. give me a moment. is there any other senator that wishes to be heard? all those in favor will say aye. the ayes have it. >> thank you, chairman. i would offer amendment number one, it is eight pages back in the handout that has been given out to the members. i am proposing to amend section two to clarify that the president does not have a blank check to launch any type of attack.

it would only authorize naval and air base strikes outside of syrian territory if the president determines it to be necessary. it will help to address the concerns i have heard from the mexicans and the american people that this narrow strike will lead to further involvement. a bombing campaign involving u.s. planes puts u.s. personnel in harm's way and dramatically increases the risk that this conflict could escalate. this language reflects what the president has asked for. when we have resolutions that are too broad, they get taken way too far. with that, i would offer the amendment and asked for a vote. -- ask for a vote on it.

>> this is micromanagement that is not only unnecessary, but we really cannot tell the president of the united states what tactics that he has to employ. we can place limitations on certain broad activities or efforts on the part of the president, but we really do not have the expertise here to know exactly what kind of attack should be launched or not be launched. i understand the senator from new mexico's caution about this entire enterprise, but if we start down this road, we will be running the campaign from here. as smart as we are, i do not think we are that smart. >> i am sympathetic to the view expressed in this amendment by our actions should

be specified and limited. amendment reflects the administration's thinking about what is required. however,i believe it would be a mistake for the senate to tie the president's hands by having us dictate the specific military tactics he can and cannot use to complete the mission. the language already limits the geographic scope of the mission to syria, focuses the mission on addressing the use of chemical weapons. limits the time frame and rules out the use of ground forces for combat operations. i appreciate the senator's concern, but the chair would have to oppose the amendment. does the senator seek a recorded vote? >> yes. >> the clerk will call the roll. [roll call vote]

>> the amendment is not agreed to. are there any other amendments? if not, all amendments having been considered, [inaudible] absolutely. having dispensed with all of the amendments, let us proceed to a final vote on the use of force. >> chairman? >> i do not have an amendment. >> i would certainly entertain the senator's request. the senator has hung in here

with us despite the advent of >> shanash holidays. tova. >> if any other senator wishes to address it, i would urge them to let us take a vote. >> thank you. this issue is of concern. many senators have raised the inclusion of the broader issue of u.s. policy and national strategy on syria. this is a concern that i share. i would argue that section five of the resolution on syria's strategy does not belong in this resolution as it ranges well beyond the issue of deterring and degrading the chemical

weapons attacks capacity and their ability to launch a future attack. in addition, since this requirement is directly linked to the presidential determination required under sections 2b 6, it raises the question whether the 30 day reports becomes a mechanism for dragging the u.s. further into the middle of the syrian civil it is not an appropriate thing to be in this resolution. it is not something the president talked about in terms of what we need. i just wanted to make that statement. >> i ask unanimous consent to allow committee staff to make technical changes to the text. any objection?

without objection, so ordered. i moved to vote on passage of the resolution. is there a second? the clerk will call the roll. >> [roll call vote]

>> the clerk will report. >> the resolution is agreed to. i thank all of the committee members for their serious engagement in this process. i stand ready to have any member who wishes to make a statement senator rubio?. >> thank you. for the record, i would like to state the following. what is happening in syria is of vital national consideration. syria is far away.

but it matters for several vitals.syria is of importance to iran. assad is a dangerous anti- american dictator. third, this prolonged conflict is creating vast spaces which are creating jihadist to operate. if assad does not face consequences for what he has done, and is doing, it sends a message to north korea and iran that they can cross redlines without fear. those who argue it is none of our business are wrong. i have urged the president to pursue a more robust engagement.

however, while i have long argued forcefully for an engagement and empowering the syrian people, i have never supported the use of military force in this conflict. i still don't. i remain unconvinced that the use of force proposed here will work. the only thing that will prevent assad from using the chemical weapons in the future is to have the people remove him from power. i do not believe furthers that goal. i believe it may prove to be counter productive. it will allow assad to claim they took on the united states and survived. it could unleash a series of events that could destabilize the region. this idea that a military response is the only way to respond to what is happening in syria is not true.

instead, our response should have always been a multifaceted plan to help the syrian people get rid of assad. this committee has already put forth a plan that accomplishes that. the syrian transition support act. it would openly provide non- lethal and non-lethal support and increase non-lethal support. we should only do this if we are able to identify rebel groups that will not transfer those weapons. second, we would pursue sanctions against individuals and financial institutions that have provided or facilitated the sale of weapons to assad. we should create a transition fund that will assist a transition to a moderate transitional government in syria. fourth, we should increase humanitarian aid to syrian people.and to the countries

hosting syrian refugees. let me close by recognizing that there is a movement afoot in both parties to disengage the united states from issues throughout the world. it is true that we cannot solve every crisis on the planet, but if we follow the advice of those who seek to disengage with global issues, we will pay a terrible price. america is not just another country. it is an exceptional one. the most influential, the most powerful, and the most inspirational on earth. we must recognize the world is a safer place when america is the strongest country in the world. when america doesn't lead, chaos follows. eventually, that chaos forces us to deal with these problems in the most expensive and in the most dangerous ways imaginable. just because we ignore global problems doesn't mean they will ignore us. they become bigger and harder to solve. sadly, cre is just the latest example of that fundamental

truth. had do we forcefully engaged earlier in this conflict, today we would have more and better options before us. instead, the president with the support of voices in my party chose to let others lead instead. now, we are dealing with the consequences of that inaction. thank you. >> thank you senator rubio. >> i have a longer statement i will submit to the record. i just wanted to be clear this afternoon that the decision to take military action is not one that i take lightly. but, failing to take action against assad's regime and their use of chemical weapons poses a real threat to our national security interest. i understand that there are a lot of people in new hampshire, my home state, and throughout

this country who are war-weary a concerned about the consequences .f the use of military force i share those concerns. i do believe that we have to act to deter the spread and use of weapons of mass destruction. i believe this limited military action that we have authorized will deter the assad regime. this resolution that was passed by the committee is limited in time and scope. it does not authorize american troops on the ground. i believe this type of targeted appropriate response will best protect our national security interest. thank you. >> thank you. your statement will be in the record. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me thank you. you have done a masterful job in dealing with one of the most challenging issues that we could possibly consider. i have listened to this debate.

i cannot tell you how many times i've hearkened back to 12 years ago, the debate over the war in iraq. maybe that is one of the curses of being in congress for a while. some of these ghosts still rattle around the halls of the united states congress. there is a clear difference between what we are considering today and what happened to of years ago. our decision is being made in the shadow of the war of iraq, with the specter of a war in iran looming. the shadow recalls a moment 12 years ago when the government of the united states america was guilty of political mortal sin. it misled the american people into a war. it told the american people that we had to invade iraq to destroy weapons of mass destruction, which threatens our neighbors, allies, and ourselves. it wasn't true. we learned that the hard way. we paid a bitter, heavy price for it. thousands of americans lost their lives.

more than a trillion dollars was spent in a war that should've been avoided. that was the reality of the war in iraq. on it's heels, the war in afghanistan. i voted against that war in iraq and for the authorization for the use of force in afghanistan. that seemed like such a clear choice. in afghanistan, we're going after those responsible for 9/11. responsible for killing over 3000 innocent americans. of course we would. no one strikes united states and kills our people without paying a price. i voted for it. i didn't know at the time, no one could have known that i was voting for the longest war in american history. voting for an authorization for use of military force which took that president and many others to far-flung corners of the world in pursuit of stopping terrorism. i think that is what is behind the american people's reluctance

to see the united states engage in additional conflict in the middle east. this bitter memory of what happened in iraq, when we were misled, and this long war in afghanistan, which the president now brings to close. i think this is different. i really do. i believe that there is a moral component here that is critically important. i listened to senator rubio. he is right. the united states bear the responsibility. we try to be a leader when it comes to civilized conduct. when it comes to the use of weapons of mass destruction, particularly chemical weapons, the united states must take a strong position, and try to lead the world into a civilized

path to avoid the use of these weapons in the future. the president is my friend. i was the first senator to endorse him for president. for 14 months, i was the only one. his time came in iowa. he became our nominee and president of the united states. i'm proud of him. i respect his values. i know him better than most any person in this town. this president doesn't come easily to war. he understands that there are moments when a leader, a commander in chief, to protect this country has to step up and lead. that is what he has done here. this last saturday, i was with many of his friends in illinois. they do not agree with the president at this moment, and his policy in syria. he understands that. but a true leader has to step up and do what he thinks is right. that is why joined him today. i think we have narrowly defined

what is this administration and president can do for purpose that serves beyond our own peace and security. a good for the whole world. i hope the message comes through on this committee meeting and the floor of the senate and the house. that this congress, democrats and republicans, are resolute when it comes to discouraging and stopping the spread of chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction. if the united states and not take this leadership role, i do not know who would. i want to say that i think -- i take seriously the president's promise we will not be putting boots on the ground in syria. i have been to too many funerals to ever want to see us do that again, except when absolutely necessary for america's survival. i think the we have done today is a step in the right direction. i hope that makes it a safer world. >> thank you. is there any other member who wishes to be heard? >> thank you. i would like to thank my colleagues on the committee for the way that this debate has been conducted. as secretary kerry said to us,

it is important not just what we decide as a body, but how we as a body, but how we decide it. i think the cautious and thorough discussion of this authorization is one that meets the expectations of the american people. the outcome is unpredictable based on partisanship, but is a reflection of the values and the insights of each member of this committee. as this authorization moves to a debate, i continue to be mindful that i represent a state that is weary of war. the conflict in iraq brings to the fourth.

i have reviewed in detail the intelligence offered and am convinced that assad's regime has used chemical weapons. likely repeatedly. the attack two weeks ago in the damascus suburbs massacred more than 1000 innocent civilians, and given the steady rising crescendo in deaths over the last two years that has graduated from using snipers and helicopters, and using cluster bombs and scud missiles. in the absence of action to reinforce a global red line that has been enshrined for decade, in the absence of that action, assad will use these weapons again. we will be less safe. i have been persuaded the risks of inaction are greater. this is a difficult debate. i believe we will have more on the -- more to discuss on the floor of the senate. it is my hope that we will ultimately approve this

authorization. this is not an act that i take with any lightness of heart, and with a full recognition of the potential of difficulties ahead. thank you. >> thank you. let me thank you and senator corker for your efforts to revise the reauthorization of force that was submitted for the administration for the dignified process you followed, and how you shepherded it along. this authorization of force is an improvement over what was originally proposed by the -- but at this point, i do not see how i can support it. and how i can support it in the future. i want to repeat that i'm horrified by what assad has done to his own people.

he has committed a heinous act and a violation of the geneva convention. no doubt about it. however, i believe that this proposal is the wrong course of action for the united states. i am voting no because this policy moves united states towards greater involvement in the syrian civil war, and an increasing regional conflict. this is a complicated sectarian civil war. some of the rebels share our values. they want an open society. many others are allied with al qaeda and a greater threat to the united states than president assad ever was. u.s. military involvement, no matter the limits at this point, will likely only pull us towards greater involvement.

with no clear end game. i remain concerned that we have not sufficiently made our case internationally. as i said yesterday, our attention should be on the source of assad's ability to continue to ruthlessly kill his own people. that is support from nations, that is support from nations, including russia and china, which are cynically trying to hold the high moral ground. assad would not able to maintain his grip on power if he were not being supported from outside. the full force of the international outrage should come down on those nations that are refusing to allow the u.n. to act and find a solution. instead, an attack on assad puts us on shaky legal ground internationally. just as the president get stronger with congressional support, we are much stronger with international support. we do not have the support of some of our key allies. we cannot achieve a u.n. mandate. our recent history should serve to make us very cautious. vietnam started with u.s. advisors and a limited naval presence.

it led to an all-out war, and a quagmire that cost lives of thousands of u.s. service members. the iraq war began as an international effort to kick saddam hussein out of kuwait. as we all know, this action eventually led to what is one of the greatest blunders in u.s. military history. we cannot afford another iraq. finally, i want to say that we should not take it lightly that the american people are not with us. i've received hundreds of calls and letters from new mexicans. i have talked to scores myself

over the last couple of weeks, and the neighbors of the calls and letters have been opposed to escalating. americans are tired of war. their worry about the stress it puts on our economy. their worry about the safety of our troops. their husbands, wives, sons, daughters. they know what the administration is proposing won't provide assurance that assad will not attack again. that it will not ensure his regime will not retaliate in some way. the truth is we cannot guarantee that even a surgical strike will prevent the united states from being embroiled in war. we should not enter into a conflict until we have exhausted every diplomatic and international option. we have not done that. the risk of the the actions we are contemplating now are too great. i cannot support this proposal. again, i think senator menendez and senator corker.

you have led an excellent effort here. it shows the good work we can have in this committee. i thank you for trying to mediate the concerns that i have had in this language. thank you. i yield back. >> i appreciate your views. senator murphy. >> i want to add my thanks to that of senator myrdal's. we were ready for this debate in large part because we have been talking about syria and the threat that the instability poses to the united states all year. i want to express my thanks to the administration for being so deliberative in this process. this president has been reluctant to bring military force to bear on the syrian conflict. it reflects a reluctance of the american public.

i may differ today with respect to his view on the immediate subject in hand, by-- but i appreciate the fact that he has been careful in reaching the conclusion he has today. i voted against this authorization today because i think there are two questions that you have to ask when considering whether to use military force. first, whether there is a national security imperative. i think that secretary kerry and the president have made that case well over the past several days. there is no one on this committee that doesn't believe what assad has done to his people is not atrocious. there are few of us that don't believe he hasn't crossed an international red line. i would agree that what happened in theory is important to national security interests. the second question i think we all are asking is, are the methods that we have before us to change a situation going to

be effective? are they going to make things better for the syrian people and for security interest, or could they make things worse? that is what leads to my no vote today. i cannot answer that second question in the affirmative. first, there is a chance that the strikes could actually make the situation worse on the ground in the short run. i will briefly read a paragraph written by stephen cook, a senior fellow at the council on foreign relations. he said in the face of an attack, assad will remain defiant. he would step up the balance to exert control in his country and to demonstrate united states and allies cannot intimidate him. the regimes supporters would increase their investment in the conflict, meaning more weapons and fighters, resulting in more supporters. this environment would heighten serious substantial divisions,

divisions, pulling the country apart. the secretary said the only thing we know that if we do nothing the situation will continue to deteriorate. this sounds even worse. everyone has come to different conclusions. i simply believe the risks of action today outweigh the risks of inaction. given this resolution commits congressional support for arming the syrian rebels, i worry that we have now committed ourselves to a level of support that will have to endure past the fall of assad. given the commitments were we're making today, it will be difficult for the american government to untie ourselves from support for the opposition and they follow one government because of this resolution. i know none of us want to be involved in a long-term conflict. i worry that the resolution and authorization would make it difficult for us to avoid that reality. i thank you for the work you have done.

i think this language is much better than what was composed to -- proposed to us at the outset from the administration. i oppose not because i do not gag every time i look at those photos of children who have been killed by assad in his lethal attack. i have deep concerns about the limits of american power. >> thank you for your comments. i respect them. >> i extend my thanks to you for this process. i am impressed by the thoughts of my colleagues as i've listened to the debate and talk to them in these committee hearings. i also expressed my appreciation to the administration. it took courage to bring this

matter to congress. it is the right thing to do for a variety of reasons. to me, i think the principle that has grabbed me the most and is the principal you elaborated yesterday in your opening statement before the committee. the basic fundamental principle that at the top of the pyramid, of the relationship of nations, there is not a more principal then weapons of mass destruction. not to be used against civilian populations without a consequence. international norms, there are a lot of important ones. there's not a more important one in this. there is american writer that wrote a book about the making of the atomic bomb. there is a chapter toward war one and the development of chemical weapons technologies that were used during world war i. they went to a fraction of the casualties. it is an amazing thing to think back to the aftermath of world war i and the nations of the

world gathered and said that there is something different about chemical weapons. they passed through the geneva convention immediately ratified by the united states and soviet union. syria ratified in 1968. a ban on the use of chemical weapons. not just against civilians. a ban on the use of chemical weapons. protected serviceman know chemical weapons would not be used against them. my fear is that if the united states does not stand up for the principle the chemical weapons cannot be used, especially against civilians, no one will step up. it will be cast into the dust because the night it saves is

going to be unwilling to play a leadership role. if we play a leadership role, we have partners who play that role with us. if we do not lay leadership role, i do not think there is anyone who will stand up for the principle. i would agree with senator udall's point that we wish we had more partners than we do. that is an indictment of united nation and other nations quaking before this flagrant violation of this moral principle. there are partners who are willing to stand up for the principle with us. i fear for the world if we are not willing to stand up, no one is. i voted for this because i think it is important for us to stand up for that principle, they chemical weapons should not be used against civilians. we will give our allies safer. we would keep our nation safer. the authorization we voted for today stresses that military authorized but it is only one piece of a larger strategy. it president is required pursuant to the terms of what we have reported that he certified first priority use of military

action of the united states, using peaceful means to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction. that diplomacy effort is ongoing right now. it happened at the u.n. as we're talking about this matter on the i hopeof the senate. diplomatic efforts will continue. theiria were to turn stockpile over to inspectors, if russia would decide to stop mocking the un security council, those would be contemplated by the authorization that would pass. it is a heavy vote to have to cast.

all of us spend time with men and women in the military. we don't want our men and women in the military to suddenly be faced with the specter that chemical weapons are ok. this is a principle that has of ourrt of the fabric collective moral imagination as humanity for 90 years. only hitler and saddam hussein had violated this convention until now. hitler violated it and the world dedicated itself to eradicating him and the third reich from the husseinthe earth.saddam violated it and to our detriment, we did not act immediately. we did act as an international community by deciding to be that the 1920's convention. we strengthen the norm against the use of chemical weapons round the world with so many nations, including russia signing onto it. if we do not stand up for the principle, no one else will. for that reason, i support this.

i'm glad it is reported to the floor. i look forward to working with you and our colleagues to making sure it passes. let me thank you for a thoughtful statement. reason that the u.s. is the one indispensable nation in the world. it is a heavy burden. it is also an opportunity to lead the world to a safer, more secure world. i believe we have met that burden today. i believe that we will do so as we move to the senate floor. this meeting now comes to adjournment. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> the measure to authorize military strike on syria passed the committee, 10-7. republicans and democrats coming down on both sides of the issue. it is limited to a 60 day authorization with the ability to extend if the assad regime uses chemical weapons. the next step for this resolution, heading to the full senate, which is expected to be in session tomorrow, to clear it for a vote next week. a look at some of the members of the senate intelligence committee heading into the meeting, now going on behind closed doors, to work on the syria resolution. we heard from some of them before they entered the room, including republican susan collins of maine. she is followed by democrat barbara mikulski of maryland.

>> good morning, senator. >> good morning, senator. [inaudible] you.m fine, thank >> i look forward to this morning's briefing at the intelligence committee. i continue to have many questions about the ramifications of a limited military strike. i have had an extensive briefing yesterday with ambassador robert ford, and members of the defense department and representatives

of the joint chiefs, which was also very helpful. hadof the questions i have is whether we are looking at this issue too narrowly. this is not a choice between doing nothing and doing a military strike. there were other ways to put pressure internationally on the that regime to isolate him might be more effective, and whatnot -- would not involve military action. i'm also very wary of the united states becoming entangled more and more deeply in what is a civil war. all of us are appalled at the gassing of children. i'm also appalled at the fact that many other children have 100,000 syrians have been

killed in this conflict so far. more than 2 million have been made into refugees. this is a broader issue. administration has yet to enunciate clearly a broader strategy. i have not yet reached the conclusion on how i will vote. these briefings have been helpful, but i still have many questions about the wisdom of the president's action. >> would you feel differently if it was a republican president making this request? >> no. if you look at the vote in the foreign affairs committee yesterday, it was not along partisan lines. one of the strongest supporters of the president's requests is a republican senator, john mccain. there have been liberal democrats were very opposed to the president's proposal.

i don't think this is breaking down along party lines at all. i don't think many of us have learned how difficult it is, based on the iraq experience, for the united states to get onceengaged -- disengaged we take military action. i'm going to look at the ramifications for the region of a strike. one major issue that i have is that it is unlikely that we would be able to completely take out assad's chemical stockpile. it is one of the largest in the world. he has many means of delivering the weapons. and what if we execute that strike, and then he decides to use chemical weapons again? do we strike again?

that's the definition of further entanglement. that's the definition of a are becoming deeply involved in a us becoming deeply involved in a war. >> what happens to president if congress does not approve his resolution? >> i am weighing the arguments on the other side carefully. thatorried that the fact the president of the united states through this line in the sand. so without having a carefully considered strategy and plan in mind for what would happen if the line were crossed, which i think was inevitable. we know that there were other chemical attacks, albeit much smaller, that assad undertook earlier. we did not act then. we have sent mixed messages.

i have yet to hear a clear of consideration of all of the ramifications of a military attack. >> do you feel that you just need more details to convince e yes?r you to votge >> i have many questions, but i will miss the briefing if i stay here. i am firmly undecided at this point. this is very serious. we have to look at the impact on israel's security, the signals it sends rogue states such as don'tr north korea if we act, but we also have to consider the possibility that our acting would cause a further escalation of the violence in

the region, and that it might cause assad or hezbollah to strike against american targets, whether taking over one of our embassies, trying to do a terrorist attack on american soil. those are some of the questions that i want to hear the assessment from the intelligence community today. >> thank you. >> thanks. >> are you ready to vote on the resolution? >> no. i have more questions than i have answers. >> thank you. >> thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] a couple of the senate committee meetings going on behind closed doors as they stop to speak to reporters. c-span will bring updates as they are available. house and senate leadership are hosting closed briefings this afternoon. we will bring you members' reactions. c-span will be live from the brookings institution on war reaction to the syrian chemical weapons attacks last week. former government officials, analysts, and other middle east experts at 3:00 p.m. eastern. the townhall series continues this evening, with a look at the use of military force against syria and we want to hear how you think your representative or senator should here on the issues. the townhall begins live at 7:00

eastern. resident obama is in st. petersburg, russia a. prime with the japanese minister and has other meetings tomorrow, and tomorrow a news conference with the president after the summit before he flies back to the u.s. discusspolicy experts policy toward syria and iran and a release i report by the jewish e for national security affairs. is among those who spoke. this is about an hour and a half. , awelcome to red lines blueprint. we are here to read the first

at jinsa.er it is the first paper of our new iran task force, and we have almost half the task force here on the dais right now on the panel. as you can see, and i will mention some of the names, it is a very distinguished a partisan group of leading experts in the field. this paper, which we have in the back and hopefully please take if you have not already, is the first of a series of paper we will be putting out on u.s. policy toward iran. i will also note the report is also posted on our newly jinsa.org,ebsite, at and i encourage you to check it out. ,ver the past week, washington certainly the country, and really the whole world, has been

focused on the question whether the united states should and militarily. syria and if so, what sort of strike that would be. following the story and its many dizzyingts has been a experience for all of us, and also for our allies. insufficiently stressed in this story and perhaps insufficiently understood has been in this debate that i think i think the-- is syria issue needs to be understood largely in the context of iran. the panel will be addressing the syria issue, but also how it affects the iranian issue. to make clear, we say in our paper a strategy to prevent a

nuclear iran, we stated up front on the first page that stopping a nuclear table iran is the gravest, most pressing national security threat facing the united states state. how to do this? in light of the price election earlier this summer, -- the surprise election earlier this rouhani, and despite a number of people across the world believe and consider rouhani a moderate, and how best to prevent iran in the context of what is going on in syria, is that a complicating factor, it is also an opportunity? i would encourage everyone to read the whole report, but i want to highlight a few key points before and then interest youth -- introduce the panel

before i turn it over to mort zuckerman. we disagree with the obama administration that the aim is to prevent iran from developing a nuclear weapon, partly believes we believe based on history it is myopic to believe we will be able to detect iran from putting all the pieces of a nuclear weapon together and then .cting in a timely fashion we believe u.s. policy should be aimed instead at depriving iran of the ability to pursue nuclear weapons. the metrics for making that assessment should not be limited on what is really prime minister netanyahu stated last year, at the u.n., a year ago, when he focused on iran's nuclear stockpile. we believe the metrics are more complicated, and there are a number of variables that go in how to assess nuclear weapons

capability. our belief is that -- is that the red line for preventing iran from becoming nuclear is to prevent them from getting material faster so that the united states could successfully preempted. preemption will only be possible stoppedrogress is before it attains an undetectable nuclear weapons capability. turning to the iranian elections am a we grappled with what the significance of the election rouhani.room honey -- it was a surprise, any people thought that someone more seemingly closely aligned with the supreme leader might be the one elected. yet it was rouhani. what does this mean?

we offered in our report two possible interpretations of the meaning behind his election, but we believe both of those interpretations argue for a very tough policy toward iran. let me mention them quickly. after petition number one is that the regime is weak in iran, if not -- and possibly the security apparatus has collapsed. nei were too weak to enforce their own preference and elected. 2009,eared the repeat of after the presidential election, that if they named their favorite and they decided to accept the rouhani victory. that was one interpretation. the other was an elite commendation that means that the

regime is merely weakened, not collapsed, and they are seeming to reduce pressure, internal and external, and they felt that rouhani was acceptable because he is a consensus builder and he is seeing both internally and externally as a moderate, so having him become president will reduce their pressures. we believe the implications of both of these interpretations are the same. -- if the security apparatus has collapsed in the first interpretation, then united states must go for broke, put maximum pressure to fracture the leads, -- the elites, and then arms control agreement then will only alleviate the pressure. if the regime is merely weakened, we still believe you have to increase the measure because otherwise the status quo will certainly -- will still be

continued. if the regime is hurting and a negotiated solution might be in reach. if it's means of coercion has evaporated, the u.s. should help the regime find its way into history's dust bin. the u.s. needs to quickly test boast of these interpretations. the best way to do that is to -- is through the mimetic engagement that would test iran's sincerity and determine really, help explain really the political dynamics behind rouha ni's election. the panel will discuss the possible diplomatic options, but i will say we had a heated discussion about that. there was disagreement about exactly what the best approach was, but we never did down to two. me continue,-- let though -- we disagree with those

many have argued that if you relieve pressure that the regime will feel more secure and more likely to come to a diplomatic arrangement. we believe on the contrary that history with the iranian regime should suggest the regime only response to pressure. we also believe in rhetoric and in action obama and congress must convey concretely the will to strike iranian nuclear facilities as a last resort. we discussed the or should a political warfare as an important pressure. highlightsome of the . the group will not only be discussing syria, but all these issues and how it affects iran and flash some of the points i raised out further. to conclude, i want to thank at least in my office jonathan for his hard work on this paper. andrea smith,and

and bill, for their efforts on this paper and organizing the events, and i want to highlight jamie him our communications director. let me turn to the panel. we have a distinguished panel, and worked zuckerman is going to be moderating. editor and chief of "u.s. news and world report." thessador eric edelman is co-chair of the task force, a former undersecretary of defense for policy, and now is a --tinguished resident at ambassador dennis ross is the other co-chair.

he is a former special assistant to president obama and a senior director at the national security council for the central region. a council at the washington institute for near east policy. john hannah is currently a senior fellow at the foundation for the defense of democracy. cher is former secretary of state and is currently a principal at the podesta group. takeyh is a senior fellow at the council of for eign relations. please take a look inside to report. i will mention the other members of the task force. professor elliot

retiredrry goldstein, admiral gregory johnson, retired general chuck walls. they are the other members. i turn it over to mort. thank you. >> thank you very much. as i was driving here with a driver who was not sure her we were going, it reminded me -- thank you -- can you hear me? as i was driving here with a driver who was not sure where he was going, and brought to mind the old adage and you do not know where you are going, any road will do. still not working. get closer to it. >> there is an old phrase which is when do you not know which way you are going, any road will

do. every now and then i have had that feeling with the way the administration has been conducting itself. there is a point that we must now look at and that was the president's response to the chemical weapons attacks by a soft of serious and whether that affects viability and credibility in the way of our threat that president obama pledged shortly to use all the elements of american power to support iran plus nuclear ambition and prevent, not , and thatnuclear iran on issues like this in these matters he does not love. i am going to -- he does not blouuff. he said this year a nuclear iran would threaten the stability of the global economy as well as triggering a nuclear arms race in the region. unraveling the nonproliferation

treaty. does hisd, how response to the chemical weapons attacks in your judgment affect the credibility and the viability of what we have heard in just in terms of words and intentions? mort, i think you have put your finger on what is an extremely important questions, one that we tried to address in the report that is being released today. one of the reasons i think the report is timely is that with all the attention that has been focused on egypt and syria over ae last few weeks, we have great example of what many of us who have worked in washington have seen before, which is the urgent chasing out the merely important from peoples time and attention. in the midst of all this, about a week or so ago the iaea

delivered another report on iran must nuclear progress, which shows mostly bad news. the good news is the heavy water reactor is not proceeding as quickly as earlier reports suggested it might. on the other hand, iran is proceeding apace with the installation of more effective, for efficient centrifuges uranium enrichment. one of the things the paper addresses is the issue you raise, which is the credibility of the diplomatic effort and what underpins it. i think one of the things we talked about is that you do need an all government approach, all particulars, and in diplomacy needs to be underwritten by clear military .ntent and capability

and so obviously what has happened over syria is extremely important. it is one reason why it is crucial that congress actually authorizes the president to take action. i would hope they would urge along the way that the president take more robust action. it is worth perhaps reflecting on how we got to this path, there are steps that could have been taken earlier that might have made it less necessary to deal with this issue. but i think it is important for the institutional presidency and the credibility of the president's statement with regard to iran that the congress authorized the use of force. unless iran believes there is a credible military option underpinning the willingness to negotiate, there will not be a successful negotiation, and we all agreed a negotiated outcome would be the best from

everybody's point of view if we can get there. i generally agree with what eric had to say. i would make a couple of points. this hits to the heart of what you're asking. of the issueraming by the administration on syria makes it unmistakably clear that if there is not a response to the crossing of a redline, the arabians will draw a lesson that when we create red lines we do not mean them. the president is seeking nearly is to eat a congressional adds, createsthat a greater sense of political it is is missy for the actions they are taking. if congress were not to authorize, the message that would be sent is not only do we not have a red line, but the congress would be sending a green light to anyone to use chemical weapons anywhere and

know that they can do it without a response from the united states. obviously the array needs will also -- the arrhenius will try conclusion which is to say the americans have established a red line, they are not prepared to act on a red line when the administration makes it clear that prevention is an objective that will look more rhetorical than real. there is a direct relationship between what is going on in syria and how the arabians -- it.iranians will perceive there are those who say somehow that if we use military strikes against the syrians, because of the use of chemical weapons, this will strengthen the hardliners within iran. i wouldn't make too different. -- i would pay to differ. it has the opposite impact. it makes it clear when the

united states says something about its objectives it aims what it says. and almost i would say the most diplomacyy to assure has a test is exceed with iran -- to succeed with iran is for the iranian regime is to understand that force will be used. that is the last a neuron wants. -- last thing iran wants. if we want diplomacy to succeed, the thrust of what the support -- report suggests, i think the more credible it is that we will be prepared to use force, that is more likely to make a diplomatic outcome a certainty. at this point i think the thrust of this report is that there is a chance to have diplomacy succeed. i do think 1.i would quibble

what mike had to say. i actually think the position of is -- thestration president has said that you cannot just wait until they are at that point. i think the measures we have identified in this report, which is you have to have sufficient time to be able to detect and then act creates the kind of standard by which to judge when you are past the point where in fact you would lose the ability to in short when you say prevention is your objection you can fulfill let objective. thanks. for puttingnsa together the group. one thing i say on the issue of

credibility and red lines, and the audience is not only in iran , and it is in particular throughout the world, but in particular with respect to iran in the middle east. travelednybody who has thetime i would say over last two years or three years over the region knows already before the syria crisis the store of confidence in the president's red line with respect to the iranian nuclear togram and his willingness really take on necessary measures to stop the iranians from achieving a nuclear military capability, that .onfidence was already very low in the wake of the syria crisis and what has happened to the extent that people do see a degree of indecision, lack of

unwillingness, very rapidly, once a red line is crossed to take measures to atress it am i think has least momentarily put us into a much more dangerous position, but the number of calls i have gotten from israelis and the number of discussions i have had areecent days, they really alone in this and it is really going to be up to them. and time force action, for israel, becomes much quicker than it is for the united states. to the extent people measure the israeli red light am a green light, been light response -- we have gone into a and more dangerous posture,

the president can recover still, but i think now the bar, if he gets approval from congress, which i think he should, and i think it is necessary at the expectation for what he is going to do to enforce that red line and the kind of damage he will do this. the kinds of consequences there will be four crossing president's red line, people will be looking at that. we are beyond the realm of shot across the bow and doing enough not to be mocked. this will have to be a serious operation. whatever the president thought before saturday when he threw in ,his into the congress'hands and this is an indication of how worried israelis are, how important this issue of american credibility and the credibility of the president and the congress is this decision by apa c to go public yesterday with their endorsement for congressional authorization. they know how essential

fulfilling that threat against syria is to this larger issue of iran, and that is one of the best indicators. the other final question i would raise, and i do not know how israelis are thinking about this, whether the administration has thought about it, but as a procedural matter and a presidential matter, having thrown this relatively small issue on enforcing an obvious breach of a red line into the hands of congress, what is the president going to do with respect to the iranian nuclear row graham where confidence levels and arguments within the community much be more severe -- it is not going to be the iranians, not having used a capability, but the prospect that they have capability, what will the president do in that situation, and that is a big question that people have to think about seriously now, how

do we put in place a structure now so that we are not in the same situation we have been in the last two weeks when we did determine iran is very close to a breakout capability. >> please go ahead. thank you. i agree with everything my colleagues have said about the importance of congress voting to give president the authority he has asked. our national interest requires it at the current stage. i think it is unfortunate that we have come to this issue the way we have. authorizationht was necessary, he should have said that at the outset instead of waiting so late in the game to decide that was an essential step. the way this has played out reminds me of the movie "high noon." a classic with gary cooper. po--e movie, gary to

gary cooper is the marshal, and he breaks away from his wedding to grace kelly to round up a posse to confront the outlaws. as the movie plays out, the members of the posse beltway so by the climactic scene he is all by himself acing the outlaws. that is what has happened here. obama breaks away from his vacation to deal with this threat, to round up the posse, and david cameron bales out so suddenly the president decides and says what i need is congressional authorization. it does not suggest a high level of confidence in his conviction that he is doing the right thing. i think that has fed the skepticism in the congress. it has made it more difficult

for members to feel comfortable that they are doing the right thing by voting to endorse the president. for the reasons that have been articulated, having to do with iran and the perceptions of the reliability and seriousness of the united states, i think congress needs to step forward and give the president the authority he has requested. -- i be the last speaker want to highlight to arguments made by dennis and john. in terms of effects on diplomacy. it seems to me the experience of the past educated suggests -- of the past decade suggest that the iranian regime, whatever political complexion, is more interested in diplomacy when it feels anxious and distressed. the question becomes how much

distressed and anxious are they because of this perspective use of military force? in terms of demonstration effects, to highlight the point that john made, demonstration effects in terms of demonstration of the use of military force in one place and its effect on others, demonstration effects affect allies more than u.s. adversaries. what happens in serious often considered in context of iranian calculations, but the calculations of the gulf states, israelis, and others looking at this issue is going to be more material as you think about this issue. those are the two points i wanted to make. i apologize that steve gave away the end of the movie, for those of you who have not seen it. >> gary cooper stands alone and faces the outlaws. president obama decides to

convene a meeting with the city council to advise him. there is quite a contrast. >> one of the ironies is that the president and united states that have to rebuild their credibility after what some would have called a fiasco over serial, and that is a difficult process because without it we cannot develop a credible war campaign against iran that we need. we have to address, and i would like you to think about that and talk about that, is we are in a situation where there is a precedent of going to congress. i do not know whether you can alert congress to the kinds of risks that we might be able to assess these of the air on and have enough time to have a long national dialogue about that while iran goes about its merry way. are we not putting us into a iranrent posture vis a vis regarding syria and how do we get out of this?

i would just say one brief thing and then dennis might want to add or subtract from it. the president, when he made his announcement on saturday, did say correctly in my view that he has the authority on his own to do this and that he did not need to go to the congress. but he chose to do it for the reasons he articulated and perhaps some others. i think with something of the magnitude of iran, i would hope that he would continue to believe he has the authority to do it, and i would argue we should not look at this as a although there may be people now who argue that it is. >> i agree with what eric said. behink the key here is to assuminghow that, a,

there is authorization, the character of the strike itself impact.ts one kind of john's point earlier -- john made two points. one was that the strike itself needs to be seen as e fact in, not just -- effective, not just symbolic, but because it becomes a manifestation of the use of american power, that has an effect on your radiance and may have an effect here. .1. .2, i think in the president's might he is trying to draw a distinct and between iran and syria. and to some extent i suspect int one if his hesitancy's that he sees serious abuses required meyer and he did not want that to somehow limit that he could do about iran where he

has viewed that being a more strategic threat. what -- one can debate whether to see it that way or not, at that has been the perception he has had great one response in the aftermath of this, aside from i think the importance of being effective in terms of number 2, 1 of the responses john was suggesting, to prepare the ground now, which one would be the way to affect the point you're making about political warfare. you want to convince iranians that diplomacy is the best way out, and that is by lining up your ducks in advance, that we are serious about diplomacy ucceeding. when you prepare the ground for that, you're sending messages to the arabians. some of the preparation would be appropriate, but there is something that the president pointdo, to reinforce the

at eric was making and that the president himself made in his statement on saturday that he did not need to go to the congress for this. he chose to do it because he felt given the current context of syria and the character of the conflict they are, it being a civil war, it being characterized by not just a civil conflict, but also an opposition that is itself highly fractured with elements that we absolutely oppose, that he puts that in a very different category than iraq, and he has been very consistent on the issue that iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, and i would say he has something else that he could also use publicly. he is the third president in succession to make the same point. you had resident could to make the point that iran could not make the point, president bush make the point, and now you have president obama doing it as

well. this is a different issue. this is not a civil conflict. this is a case of ensuring that a regime that has filing did all -- international resolutions that has violated all the international physicians -- resolutions, that that as result, three different administrations have said this country cannot be permitted to have nuclear weapons. i think he can do more to in a sense draw the decision between syria and iran and that would make him less susceptible to the charge that he has established a president that has -- a precedent. >> i do not disagree with my colleagues, but my hope is that the president reserves the right and the authority to strike iran on his own. i do think -- i mean, the --ious crisis has given him

the syrian crisis has given him an opportunity to talk about iran, and he will probably be doing that carefully. wasy the president basically awful about preparing the american public for about what he is about ready to get into with syria. wary, but is more they have not heard from their chief and what his red line meant up until the last week. the american people are rightly incredibly confused and they still have not heard anything from him that is authoritative and out of the oval office talking about this and raising the stakes. that onone some of iran. i think he will have to do a lot more of that. he has got to get serious about congressional consultations at least. i think he has made his domestic

situation with suspected iran touch more difficult because in some ways syria is an easy case, when someone uses weapons of mass desertion openly and publicly in a decisive way. easyis in some ways the way to get people to act. on iran him a i have the sense -- on iran, i have this is that if he does that we advocate and hit them before he -- before they are about to test a bomb, all of the stars have got to align for him to be able to take a credible case to the american people, and if he does it without congress and with very low support amongst the american public for going into a big, wider war with iran compared to syria, at be so we are told, she is buying himself a hell of a

problem. some people have talked about kindssue of getting some of earlier pre-authorization from congress on the question of the use of force in the iran under certain traditions -- the dishes. and people have shied away from that because it will lose in the congress. that is an idea out there, and at a minimum, this conversation the president is having with the ,eople and congress about iran pivoting off of syria, i think he has got to engage that in a much more serious way. you asked a good question about the presidential value of .his when it comes to iran fortunately, the serious matter does not exist in a vacuum. there is history including in the obama administration, and i

have in mind libya which obama withoutd operations authorization, relying on his constitutional authority, and part of the consternation i expressed earlier is accounted for by the contrast with libya, which unlike what i understand to be completed for syria, which as a much more serious operation. ive die digression, but i know that there is a good case to make that what president obama has in mind with regard to syria would not even trigger the war powers resolution, because that says the -- that resolutions at any time the president introduces united states armed forces equipped for combat into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign country, he has to notify congress, and after 60 days he has to withdraw them if congress

has not authorized the operation. tomahawk cruise missiles do not exist in 1973 when the resolution was written, but there is a good case to be made at the tomahawk cruise missiles fired from a distance are not united states armed forces equipped for combat, and so on like in libya, where we had manned aircraft flying over the country and had u.s. armed or sacred for combat in libya, the apply.ers resolution a cruise missile strike, over in a few matter of minutes, not involving manned aircraft, i think is a decent case that that resolution does not cover that. in syria, the president has decided to go forward without authorization. when it comes to iran, i think he has a precedent to not seek authorization, but there will be members of congress who will say absolutely, for a larger, more momentous operation against iran, he needs to seek

authorization. i am not a military expert, but i would suspect that the success of any operation against iran will be much greater if we have the element of surprise on our side, and a prolonged debate about whether or not to authorize this of course will probably cost us the element of surprise. again, i echo some of the things that have been said. reverence for congress. i have worked in congress. ofould say that on the issue iran, the president should do much more consulting with congress than they have, and i agree with john on this. -- there should -- ach more of a doll and

dialog. what is an acceptable the mimetic agreement? the legislative perspective differs from the executive. both capsules, washington and tehran, are falling into the same mistake. moving has talked about thenuclear department to foreign ministry, because one of the advantages of the council, where they have a bottom of all the critical constituents. buy-in.y had a on the other side, i think the executive branch here has done not a particularly good job of bringing in congress into their way of thinking about iran. you has always been -- -- coastall policies policies not work.

i think they should shed light on bringing in members of congress. let me focus on the diplomatic agreement. a diplomatic agreement cannot be an agreement negotiated between john kerry. both parties have to understand they have to sell that agreement back home to critical constituencies. and preparing those constituencies for what concessions they want to make is an important step forward, and that is a dialogue that needs to be had, along with the guy love that has been spoken about. what sort of a program is the administration willing to live with? what sort of program are the revolutionary guards willing to live with? what kind of nuclear program are congressional persons easy to live with? all these things need to come to align, and there has to be much work conspiracy. 1970.as in

it does not work that way anymore. there is way too much media. the iranian needy is full of speculation about the messaging that has been sent between the united states and iran. iran does not have a free press, but it has a competitive press. the right wing press will create the story the way they broke the iran-contra story. this will not remain behind curtains. that is not the era we live in. it is time for us to start having those dialogues here and rouhani should have that dialogue with his constituencies as well. that is when you begin to see their arms of a doable arms- control agreement as opposed to one that is expeditiously violated. back to a like to it different aspect of the question you asked, which was what is the impact of what has been going on this past week, the syrian question on the iran question

down the road. we focus on the presidential issue of going to congress. there is another issue that i do not think he has received sufficient attention, which is that if the congress authorizes military action either president , indicates a serious, and it it is a bit more robust than what has been suggested, and as dennis said, it is effect of, it is going to be an expensive proposition. it is going to cost as much as a couple of billion dollars. it is going to expend a lot of u.s. military assets, and this comes against a backdrop of being on the cusp of a second year of sequestration of the defense budget, with a $52 billion additional sequester of the defense budget when the new fiscal year hits, unless there is a deal by january 1, which

will make it extremely difficult for the department of defense to plan rationally for the next time, which could include the iranian case. and in which certain military tools that might be useful in a military strike on iran to be expended. this is already against a back round of a circumstance in which sequestration has forced on the administration a choice that secretary hagel and vice -- describedspot between capacity and capability as it tries to deal with the consequences of sequestration. i do not want to get into the debate about which is right or not, that you are talking about a military whose readiness is being graded and having to carry out what will be a comics military operation and the issue a complex military

operation and how it will be enabled goes to one of the core recommendations we make him a which is we need to seek certain --itary activities owing on going on with parallel met the mimetic efforts to make them suspects will. >> the best solution is whether or not we have credibility in what we say we would do if iran goes beyond certain red lines. a senseto we do that in at this stage of the game, given what clearly seems to me has been an impact in the arab world, not a positive impact of what has happened. i came back two weeks ago and i was astonished at how completely upset they were about the attitude of the united states and the behavior of the united states. but can the united states do in terms of public opinion here and in terms of what we can do militarily i would in some way or another give enough

credibility to the fact that we will act or react to what we come to the conclusion is going on in enron, that persuades them to come to a different conclusion that it seems to me that they are going to now. first, i accept that we are where we are in terms of perceptions, but i would, as someone who is doing a new book that also involves a fair amount of looking at america's historical posture in the middle east, i am struck by the fact that this moment is not unique. pointinteresting at one after the coup in libya in 1969, kissinger in his memoirs remarked at one point that every single one of our friends in the middle east, at the highest level, is sending messages to

the white house about liabilityns of our unre and we are not doing anything about it. it is not the first time that the perception has been the case, and what tends to turn things around is when we actually act and are seen as being effective. we have within our means to do that now. for all of the on the ease that feeling, ifectively the congress authorizes, as it should and must, and if in fact we carry out not cosmetic, but intensive set of strikes, over a short time, that , if you listen to what secretary hagel was saying yesterday and what the chairman of the joint chiefs was saying as well, that actually he grades the capability of the syrian this is seen

throughout the region has the u.s. is now suddenly in the context of where the congress has actually authorized -- and some ways it seems to me that even if the use of force is finite, you actually have an interesting situation i suspect where the president may feel the need, having gotten the authorization, to ensure that strikes are somewhat more intensive, are more effective, as a way of making not just a symbolic statement, but having a practical effect upon syria's ability to use their forces, that will send a message to the whole region and will also send a message to the iranians. as i said, if you look his earthly, not the first time we have been in this position, and when the u.s. act in a way that is seen as being effective, it changes those perceptions. >> it is the first time in which we're dealing with a country that is developing nuclear weapons and the capability of delivering, and that is not

going to be an actual act of warfare, it is going to be something that is handled fairly secretly within however iran is going to do it. we do not have quite the same kind of clear guidelines that we can rely upon here. how do we persuade them not to go too far when we do not know exactly where they are and we do not know exactly where they are going? what will be credible at this stage of the game? >> i was going to ask everybody the same question anyhow. >> i will start. it seems to me this is where there are a number of things that we can do and by the way, all of these fall in what i would describe in a dramatic realm hurt quite apart from how you posture your forces, and also by the way what eric was getting at, if we were to do something to address this issue, i would be another way to send a single that we are meeting what

we say and preparing the ground. one way to prepare the ground is for us to go to the other one andof the five plus make it clear we are very serious about diplomacy, but we also need to plan for the day after. the more you begin to do that, the more you're sending a message. you are not just focused on diplomacy. he wanted to work, but the fact is if you have to use work against the arena -- the uranium nuclear her graeme, that will not and then nuclear diplomacy, because you will want to engage in the post missy, you will want to make it difficult andthe iranians to build, that is why maintaining sanctions is important. there is no disk remained that we want to pursue a diplomatic path. there is some disagreement about what the character of that pose a would be, and i come back -- this gets to what you're asking

-- what reason you want to put a proposal on the table that shows the iranians could gain what they want, which is to say all they want is civil nuclear power, if you put a proposal on the table that would enable them to have civil nuclear power, that is seen as being credible by much of the international community, and the iranians turn it down, then you have exposed them, internationally, domestically as well. that puts the president in a different position to go to the american public and say the last two presidents have said they cannot have this capability. said it consistently. we have offered them a way to get out, a proposal that allows them to have exactly what they say they want and they have turned it down because it turns out that is not what they want, they want weapons, and that will not be permitted. that would be part of how you get addressed the question you raise. >> if i could chime in for a

second before john and other colleagues high along. inn we announced this panel june, we had an event, and i commend -- i cannot remember which panelist made a point on the printable that plagiarism is the highest form of flattery -- [laughter] the point was that people who not payanians do attention to red lines have not been paying attention to the iaea quarterly reports, because the red line that prime minister netanyahu said for the amount of low and reached an rain event that the iranians produced has been consistently avoided by them because they have been transforming some of it into oxide in order for the terror on research reactor -- or the ehran research

reactor. when there is uncertainty about whether the red line will be upheld, it modifies their behavior. that is another argument why to fail to go forward now with the red line that has been drawn on syrian chemical weapons use would have disastrous cuts wants is for those of us who think diplomacy still has a chance of being successful if it is underpinned by credible threats. there are more commerce historians on this panel then mean, but in 1969 and what followed is a bad time for the united states in the middle east and more broadly in the world. if we are in that kind of posture in 1969 where the american order looks to everybody else like it is unraveling, we are in a very serious situation that needs to

be addressed. i think that is where your question goes to, because otherwise disaster strikes. the arab oil boycott of the 1973, the war, all kinds of awful things can happen, the start of the retreat from vietnam. there are -- i agree that there are certain parallels in what is happening in the world today, in the basic sense that people out there who have relied on us since world war ii, that the the order that the united states established and enforced is beginning to unravel at some level. and people are really beginning to start to make calculations based off of that, and for me, example number one is the saudi's and what band are is doing-- bandar is i can understand how aggressive they've gotten in certain areas. the trip to moscow worries me

because there are serious things happening in that relationship that would not have happened were it not for the absolute collapse of faith in the united states, and while there may be good things that can come out of udis to be off on their own, a lot of bad things can come out of that as well potentially. but that is the kind of uncertainty that we are dealing with in the system that i think has led to quite a bit of trouble. i agree in the first place that syria now takes on this huge importance in terms of trying to convince the iranians that we are serious. i think that operation is now going to need to be something that perhaps the president and his team did not think a couple of weeks ago it might have needed to be. it will now need to have real them it's readable effects on syria and on other adversaries in the region, that they do not

want to test the united states in this regard. iranon with check to during play, i do not disagree with dennis. i think the timeframe for the iranians approaching some kind of nuclear weapon rate cap capability is fairly short, and rarely fairly service people in the middle of 2014. that is a short time. i agree that we have to test this fairly quickly. the have to try as part of our strategy to get to a bottom line very quickly. i do not know if the iranians will allow us to do that. plusnot know if the p-five one will allow us to do that. to gets got to be international support and domestic buy-in here, for any chance of it to succeed against

the iranians, it will have to be a serious proposal, different than what has been put on the table before, and i am willing to sign up for a very restrictive and restrict capability that dennis has talked about, provided that if in fact that our strategy has to be in like 1991 says this is baker the final are for, and that he rejects it and you have a clear system for determining that he has rejected it, in and days bombs start falling, things start happening. i'm not sure we can put together that kind of proposal and get buy-in from it, not only from the people, but from the international community. at the same time they go through some serious diplomacy to get to a bottom line fairly quickly. we have got to be pedal to the

metal on the separate pressure track. i would not -- i agree with a lot of people in congress who believe that congress needs to be going forward with new sanctions that really threaten to bring this economy to the verge of collapse and at the time we need to be doing all of the military things that we need to do both alone and with our that we would do if we were really serious about significanta fairly military strike against iran within the next six months to a year. >> on the issue of red lines, i think clearly and credibly drawing red lines is one of the most important things that governments do in the conduct of international relations. and when they do a bad job of it, the consequences could be

really dire. i think a lot of historians believe that we had to fight the korean war because of a speech that suggested we were not prepared to fight to defend korea. a lot of other people believe that we had to fight the first persian gulf war because our ambassador had a meeting with saddam hussein and which saddam hussein came away thinking that the u.s. was not prepared to fight to defend the independence of kuwait. in both of those cases, when the independence of those countries was therein, the united states thought thought about it and decided it was repaired to fight . whether hadebate the u.s. done a better job drawing the red lines more clearly, we could have avoided those wars, and i do not know if we will ever know the real answer. i am prepared to say that i wish it would have been more clear

because it would have been nice to avoid fighting those kinds of wars and i am troubled about today,e are on iran because i do not think united states has been very clear clear on what its red lines are. we talked about the ambiguity betweendifference producing a nuclear weapons and achieving nuclear weapons capabilities curate the administration has been on both sides of that issue in terms of their declaratory policy. asserting something like all options are on the table is not a clear red line. that is pretty ambiguous about what you're prepared to fight for. i have to give credit to prime minister netanyahu. atliterally drew a red line the un security council. as sort ofld, iran done backflips to avoid crossing that red line. netanyahu, i guess, holds credibility with the iranians.

that is what you have to take away. i worry about u.s. red ability. you know, president obama drew a red line with regard to chemical weapons used in syria, and the assad regime stepped over that line. sense some reluctance on president obama's part to enforce the red line. congress is going to vote on this now. what is he going to do if congress votes no? i served on the first bush administration. i was a lawyer handling the war powers issue for the first president bush. he was pretty clear that he was giving congress a chance to authorize it and our nation would be strengthened. he made the case that he thought saddam hussein was more likely to back down and we could avoid having to fight a war if congress authorized us to potentially fight a war. congress accepted that argument. but bush was pretty clear that

he deployed hundreds of thousands of u.s. armed forces to saudi arabia -- he was clear that he was going forward no matter the outcome in congress. critical to what ultimately was going to happen. hasobama administration been conspicuously silent on what it will do if congress fails to grant the authority that the president has requested. we do have a precedent here. , they united kingdom voted no, and the prime minister said good luck. is that what obama will do if congress votes no? i do not know what obama will do . he has not been as clear as president bush was about his commitment to proceeding your respective of what congress does. going back to the red line, the assesss are trying to

how determined the u.s. government is to prevent them from achieving a nuclear weapon. things could play out pretty badly on syria in a way that would reinforce doubts in tehran about how serious the united states is and how much they have to worry about the military option on the u.s. side. >> there has been a great deal of apprehension and the arab seriousness of the united states in terms of its willingness to play the leadership role in that part of the world. so this is going to compound that concern until we find ways to clarify that in ways that make it really clear. i will get into the historical part. , there is a lot of suggestion about the syrian red line. it was mentioned that three american presidents have ingested that iran

possession of nuclear weapons was unacceptable. three american presidents have drawn various red lines with a large degree of impunity -- impunity. in the summer of 2012, the u.s. that -- they had a slogan for it. [indiscernible] ship of at least 20% fuel. that is probably not our policy today. it is probably, in any forthcoming negotiation, that is unlikely to be our policy. you can suggest that that particular red line was unreasonable. well, then do not draw it. if you think your red line is unreasonable and unsustainable, then do not draw it. and do not attach a slogan to it. s aree syria red line

important, but there have been lots of red lines on iran that have come and gone. ,n the historical issue reasoning through historical analogy is always imperfect and too often imprecise, so here i go. if you kind of look -- i agree with dennis, it looks like the 1960's, and that is kind of a gray thing. the police is a region that has a habit of constantly dividing against itself. in the 1950's and 1960's, there was a division. you see a similar division today, but the entrenchedfar more and ideological division. there is iran and the resistance . this is what the iranian to mader said yesterday, syria is part of a larger front of resistance. therefore, it has to be thought of along those terms.

hezbollah, iran, syria, mobilizing against the sunni bloc. the region is divided. the region has been divided .efore in the 1960's then it was to buttress its allies. also, with very close u.s.- israeli relationship which is beneficial to all the of the relationships the united states had in terms of its allies and in terms of deterring its adversaries. today, the u.s.-israeli relationship has worked its way through its own growing pains. the united states, for reasons i do not always understand, is less inclined to be involved in middle eastern conflicts and rivalries. war fatigue. there is a pertinent -- a , and we aref this probably learning the lessons of the iraq war now. there is less inclination on the

part of the american public, therefore the u.s. government, to be involved in relief. i think president obama's position on the middle east is contested in the capsule, and i think it is largely unassailable in the country. if president obama goes to st. louis, chicago, san francisco, los angeles, and seattle, he will get criticism for his reticence. and the president has actually popular reticence by suggesting that east asia is where the future lies and the middle east is where old conflicts simmer. all these things have to be taken into consideration as one thinks about you ron policy. i will say one last thing. policy,y need an iran not just a proliferation policy. we need to figure out how to negate iran's influence in the

region, how to weaken the iranian regime at home. -- if have a broad paste you have a broad-based policy, it will fit in there. you kind of negotiated arms control agreement with a country that you are accusing of sponsoring terrorism and your capital at the same time. i mean, you're negotiating measures on the nuclear issue with a country that you are turning -- [indiscernible] iran policy. all these pieces kind of fit together. couple minutesa before opening the panel to questions to the audience on two things that might give us more credibility. 'se is to go after iran financial energy and other economic matters, that we can take a much tougher line on. that might have a message to be conveyed. the other is, what can we do with respect to israel to give

them certain kinds of weapons like the tankers, air-based tankers, to give them greater range and greater military credibility? moment, seems the to have credibility. how would you all feel on these kinds of issues? >> i think one of the recommendations in the report, of course, is that, with regard to the sanctions that are already on the books, that we as many passes to people as the president can, because there is waiver authority in the legislation, but we need to stop giving people waivers and force them to actually go forward with the sanctions that are already on the books. i agree with john, i think there is more we can do on sanctions. i think if i were in the obama administration -- i do not think

they would necessarily welcome me, but if i were in the administration, i think i would withlly be not unhappy voices being raised in the congress trying to push for harder sanctions. that is something that i think they can use. with regard to assurance and ,eassurance to israel underpinning the already existing credibility that netanyahu has in tehran, in an earlier iteration of this panel we recommended certain military capabilities be made available to israel. congress actually took that up in some measure. as far as i know, they still have not been transferred. there certainly are things that can be done. i think there are things we can be doing to do more visible testing. certain military capabilities we the massiveng of ordinance penetrator which would

almost certainly be involved in any kind of attack on the iranian nuclear program to which i think would have a very powerful, demonstrative impact on calculations in tehran. i think there are certainly things that can be done. >> i pretty much agree with what eric said. you can see that if negotiations iranians, ie with the can see the negotiations not necessarily adding to the sanctions but being able to point to congress and say -- look, unless there is going to be an agreement, this is what is going to happen. sanctionss -- the have obviously had an effect on the iranians. he was elected. i think there is a logic to

that. there is also a logic for transferring additional capability to the israelis. there has been a lot done already, and i think that is something that is positive from our standpoint and sends a message from our standpoint. i have suggested that we should have a demonstration and put it on youtube, let it go viral, let the iranians see it. this is a capability that was developed basically to deal with them. a 30,000 pound bomb. you know, these are the kind of things that would be helpful. i still think, at this point, given where we are with syria, the most important thing right now is to act on the red line

and do it in a way that is seen and meaningful and serious. the other thing we just discussed at this point would be less important than that. in fact, if you try to do those things, it will be looked at as a kind of very limited compensation that is not very credible. in the context of doing that, i think a lot of other things you do, even things that would be less important, will be taken as much more serious. >> john? agree, sanctions have been surprisingly effective and have helped bring us to where we are. i think the only debate is -- easily identify additional measures with regard to sanctions and with regard to israel of useful military items. the only question is whether we should persist with continuing to move in that direction or whether we should declare a haas -- pause because we are pleased

has been elected and we want him to become an negotiating partner. on that issue, it is clear we need to continue and not take a pause. the pressure that has brought us to where we are should continue to be applied and it should be increased to the extent we can increase it to it we should not hesitate to do that for fear it will complicate the negotiations. on balance, over time, it will strengthen our hand in those negotiations. >> ok, thank you all very much. let me open the floor to questions. shall we start over there? >> [inaudible] the russian quasi-'s with both iran on one hand in syria on the other -- the russian quasi- --iance with iran and syria

it is not clear to me and i wonder what you all think about if we are more successful in following through on syria, whether we would throw russia and iran closer together, making it harder for us to have a more effective policy? related to that is the question about whether this whole p5 plus one structure serves our interests or serves to undermine as. i think it is curious that congress has been much more active on the sanctions issue against iran than the administration. the administration would essentially follow through with , much less than congress would authorize peer it on the p5 plus one, i think it is -- [inaudible] >> actually, i think effective action to enforce the red line

against syria would actually russian-iranian relations, rather than strengthened them. in the sense that, notwithstanding all his culmination, i do not think there is very much that president putin can or would do to actually get in the way of u.s. military action. i think that would send a very thatful message to tehran russia's backing, when push comes to shove, might not be effective in keeping the united states from acting. we now know them captured documents that saddam hussein believed that support for both , ince and russia particular, were going to keep him from having to face u.s. military force in 2003. that turned out to be a terrible

miscalculation from his point of view. , and iif we do something want to associate myself with what dennis said, if we do something that is not cosmetic but is serious and seriously degrades syria possibility to , hitte its military forces some of the pillars of the regime. i mean, we should not forget that this is a regime that is rooted in the air force. that is the service from which the current president of syria's father comes. if we are able to essentially ground that air force, keep it from flying, that will have a very powerful impact. inthe first session we had june, i made the point then that we really are engaged now -- and this goes to a number of points that were just made him a it is

a struggle for mastery and the region with iran being one of the protagonist. the syria issue has to be seen in that light as well. i think effective action would do more to drive moscow and tehran apart than ring them together. to add one quick point to that. you know, you could see some , and i tactical moves would not dismiss that. havenot think the iranians a lot of belief and the russians to begin with. the real question i think here is from the russian standpoint -- putin has positioned himself on syria so he looks like he is the key actor. everybody has gone to him. act, and i us to think the president has also said that he would do more to

upgrade the capabilities of the opposition, at least those in the opposition would be prepared to support. i think the more we do in terms of degrading the syrian capabilities and the more we do in terms of at least getting serious about providing support to those within the opposition that we think are deserving of it, that has a chance to affect the balance of power, not only between the opposition and the regime but within the opposition itself. that creates a very different set of incentives for the russians. right now, you know, they have very little incentive to change their behavior. so to the extent to which we are acting in a way that makes it it is time for change and the russians have did decide what to do. they can decide right away, but it creates a different kind of incentive for them. a solutionink of without assad, which is not what

they have been prepared to do up until this point. as to the larger question, on one hand, it is a very useful international mechanism for us because it adds to the sense that there is broader support for what we are doing. i think the question has always been -- what is the point at which preserving the unity of the p5 plus one comes at the cost of what you're trying to do vis-à-vis the iranians? that is something you constantly have to be re-assessing. the panelists mentioned before that the situation in the mideast reminds him of the 1960's. for me, watching this for decades, it reminds me of the is and teen chinese opera -- of a byzantine chinese opera. gentlemen, can any of you address the situation vis-à-vis turkey in all of this? whether it be iran, syria, or

egypt and how this vibrates. >> acidic -- the difficulty of addressing turkey is turkey is implicated in so many of these issues, obviously, as your question suggests. i did not want to take the rest of the time to actually go through it all. on syria, just suffice it to say that for better, for worse, for the moment the government of turkey and the united states government are on the same wavelength about the importance of, as the president said two years ago, assad departing the scene. i think there has actually been some inpatients on the part of the turks about how willing the united states was to actually make that happen.

and also, unfortunately because, in addition to other things that have happened, turkish foreign policy has taken a much more sectarian turn over the last year or so as the no enemies with neighbors policy as sort of fallen apart. they have been perhaps more adventurous than they should have been in support for some elements of the sunni opposition , including al nusra. in a longer run, that will put us at odds with turkey over the future of syria as opposed to the present. >> i have two questions eared one, i am a little confused about -- does this work? what exactly about

is the consensus of the group with respect -- [indiscernible] consensus about this? it sounds like there is still disagreement about it. theo, i wonder what preponderant view might the. [inaudible] a second brief question, is there any view with respect to the syrian crisis, whether iran should be included in any future diplomacy with respect to how to end the war in syria? >> well, i think there is a consensus on prevention being through an objective.

i think there is not a consensus on what is the right kind of proposal. you know, and i sort of outlined couldew which is that you a credible offer on the table, that either the iranians can respond to and accept it because they say they only want civil nuclear power or you expose them and they turn it down. limitedld involve a enrichment capability on their part. there is a disagreement on the part of some on the panel as to whether that is the right way or not. mean, theyquo, i would get sanctions lifted, at least the sanctions related specifically to the nuclear program. befor whether they should

part of the political process on syria, my answer would be no. grouphink within the there is agreement on the characterization that we should put forward that syria's credible proposal advances u.s. interests if accepted. there is the question of enrichment, whether zero and richmond, which is been the position up until now, should remain our position or whether we should show some modest flexibility on that. ofnis has been on the side showing some flexibility. others, like myself, would prefer to keep the current position of making a proposal that would allow no enrichment. again, that has to do with our perceptions. >> [inaudible] a vote, sonot taken i do not know with the answer to that question is. you, but nothing that

you said convinces me that we are going to do anything until the first missile is in the air or land on israel. would you comment on that? i hear what tennis says. i think sanctions are great. but i think this is where we are going. >> i do not know that that is something we can actually debate here. but i could say that this panel probably would not exist if we were not concerned that if there endn action, that we could up essentially where you are describing. we are suggesting policies to help us avoid that outcome which we agree is totally unacceptable. >> good answer. yugoslavia, libya, afghanistan, we demonstrated that air power can affect regime change.

syrian regime apparently, according to reports, was in the process of getting the upper hand in the civil war against the opposition. what do you think is the regime to deploy it was ineapons when the face of a very strong president, allies, and potentially invites the type of things that are being contemplated now -- what do you think where their calculations? >> you know, i think i will go back to a point that steve made earlier about red lines, how they are drawn and how they are enforced. my observation of syrian behavior to mind others on the panel may have different views, has been that there has been that theo-year period

conflict has intensified and grown more violent, that the regime itself has been very carefully and in a very calibrated way pushing the envelope. at first you saw airstrikes and use of scuds against civilian populations and small-scale use of chemical weapons that could be denied or fudged. scaleslightly larger until you got what we saw a week or so ago. and i think this goes to the whole issue of calming you know, how do you draw a red line and how do you enforce it? the perception on the part of the regime in damascus that no matter what it did, it kept going and kept being able to get away with it because there would be pious enunciation's from the community and the united states but nothing would happen, i think it has emboldened more and more action. it is one of the reasons i think

it is essential that the authorization for military force be approved by the congress and that the president execute it. >> i am not so the perception -- there are experts who have the perception that even after they have quitee, they the momentum that you described, that they were on the verge of winning this war. there was a lot of reporting that they were having a terribly difficult time in these suburbs in eastern damascus that they had basically thrown everything at it conventionally, had not been able to dislodge the force that was being fed through a rebel pipeline coming up through jordan, heavily funded by the saudis who had serious heavy weaponry been getting -- beginning to come through. it was in that context,. being worried about the capital and what the rebels would do, they cannot get them out of these neighborhoods. the military decision was taken to throw them out and quite a

large way. i think i would have to go back and read the transcript. there was a remarkable admission by secretary kerry yesterday in which he basically said -- well, why would they have not used it? the international community has said this is a redline. the united states has said this is a red light. yet, they have used used it a multiple number of times now. not once or twice or three times last spring but repeated use on smaller scales of cw. day, this is the what tyrants do. larger powers, the question their credibility, if they are not willing to enforce it, they tell their people that nobody is going to come to help you. we're going to crush their well. at the end of the day, these are wars of will and morale.

telling these people and the entire syrian population that no one is going to help you, you are finished. there is not a damn think the united states can or will do about it. >> i think we will end this by quoting something from my home country of canada -- if you are going to try cross-country skiing for the first time, take a small country. do not the united states of america. well, this issue is going to be a huge issue coming forward. i think we could not have found a better group than the people of this panel. i want to thank them all for what was a very illuminating dialogue. thank you all very much. [applause] panel.nt to thank the as you can see, we could together a really excellent group year. obviously this is a pivotal time

for both u.s. national security interests in both the middle i hope you return here as we continue to address these issues going forward. thank you very much for attending. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> president obama and world leaders are meeting in st. petersburg, russia. they just began art of the two- day group of 20 economic sans -- summit. earlier, president obama was greeted by the russian president. he spoke only for about 15 seconds, according the associated press. they should hands, smiled, and made some small talk. they may talk again during the dinner. syria is expected to be a topic of conversation that any discussion would be private. white house and senate leaders are in a closed-door briefing. we will bring you updates as lawmakers step up to the microphones here at the capitol visitors center. the top admiral of the u.s. navy says the four u.s. destroyers off the coast of syria are fully

ready for a wide range of possible actions. that is admiral jonathan green art -- greenert. he is not in the chain of command, but here is some of what the admiral told and audience today at the american >>erprise institute. admiral, obviously on the minds of many folks is how we will be able to deal with the situation in the middle east right now, potentially some action with regard to syria. the navy is a big part of that. could you speak a little bit to both our capabilities, without getting into the tactical this is the- and second part of the question how these cuts in funding may affect your approach to such an operation and how it could be affected five or six years down the road if it continues. >> that the focus we had for

those forces we put forward today and the ships that you saw , theyere also deployed are ready. they were organized, trained, ready for a, fully vast spectrum of operations, including operations that they to launchingto do tomahawk missiles and protecting the ships themselves. we have them loaded when they go over. we will continue that into next year. that will be a centerpiece for any alternative for future budget, that those ships we put forward are ready to go. and we get as many forward as we can using the principles that i discussed. a deployed naval force or rotate crews, whatever that might be.

>> in this afternoon, c-span will be live from the brookings institution or more discussion on the u.s. reaction to the .yrian chemical weapons attack some of the panelists will include former government officials, a former cia analyst, and other middle east experts. 3:00 p.m. eastern. 7:00 tonight, our town hall series continues. we will look at the use of force in syria eared we want to hear what you think about how your representative or senator should vote on the issue. you can join the conversation via phone or twitter or facebook. a number of people already weighing in on our facebook page. rub -- robert wright said obama is sibley asking congress to save his that ability after the red line he drew. this one says i am a moroccan living in the u.s. eared extremists in syria and the middle east will be a possible that and a possible fix, a waste of money and effort.

more conversation on facebook. let us know how you want your congressional representatives to vote on syria. facebook.com/cspan. frommorning we heard viewers during washington journal. we talked to a journalist who talked about the situation in syria. we want to welcome the editor and chief executive lmonitor.com. he also served for chuck hagel. foreign relations committee approved a resolution to strike syria. what do you make of the resolution? >> it is an interesting debate. what you saw is that the foreign relations committee narrowed the scope of the authorization for the use of force. it now says limited to the use of force to degrade syria's

chemical weapons capability. it reflected a mood that i think your callers see about the concern that this operation, this military force being notidered in syria, does extend much beyond that. however, what you also saw is the initiative by senator mccain to introduce a statement of policy that reads, changing momentum on the battlefield as one of the objectives of u.s. policy. there are some in the senate and in the congress that would like to see a more assertive policy regarding the use of force for the chemical ability of the government in order to strengthen the rebels. i should note that statement of policy is not binding to the degree of authorization. host: is anything binding? it is a resolution and not a bill.

guest: but it is something that the president believes will strengthen his hand given the country has been divided on syria and he would get some congressional support. the president will, at times, go to congress for authorization. senator paul introduced ideas about revisiting that. the president has the authority to use force. but sometimes, and in this case, he is gone to the congress to reinforce that authority with this resolution. you heard senator chris murphy who voted no, along with senator tom udall, two democrats voting no. this language now complicates

the situation even more in the house. that is right. would you have seen in the house, because house members are elected every two years, they tend to be more sensitive to the popular opinion. in the latest polls that we have seen, a pew poll became a this week, shows only 20 nine percent of americans support a military strike in syria. pollhington post-abc news that came out a day before indicates that 70% of americans do not support aid to the syrian rebels. he country, at least as of now, is very much opposed to engagement in syria. host: what did you make of the time limit to this resolution, 60 to 90 days? it is to put a limit on the amount of time that the president has to enact this policy so that it is not open-

ended. there is a concern, even in the authorization to use force in iraq, that it may have been open-ended and continued over time, and i think congress is sensitive that, especially given the popular opposition to a strike, that the resolution did not lead to anything more than giving the president the authority for a narrow strike. host: what happens on day 91? guest: that is a good question. there is a provision that says it can come back for another 30 days under a certain contingency omran then he would have to go back to the congress. and this is the draft resolution. it could be changed when he gets to the floor of the senate, and the house has to do its part with the resolution. but there's also a call for the president to articulate a serious strategy to go back to their foreign affairs committee of the house, the foreign relations committee of the senate, and and put forward exactly what is the syria

strategy so that these military strikes, if and when they happen, are not in isolation of a broader vision of what the u.s. is doing in syria. in thelso included resolution -- and no boots on the ground, and this conflict cannot go the syrian borders. guest: absolutely, that is correct. you saw in the hearings and in the house foreign affairs committee, members continually returning to the issue of no prude zone the ground, no boots on the ground. secretary kerry and secretary hegel and general dempsey made clear that that is not being anticipated. you wrote recently that syria is going from bad to worse. crafting nimble state and diplomacy, however, there could be an opportunity to initiate a strategy to end the war. do you still believe that?

you wrote that on august 1 29. that. yes, i do believe the way i look at syria is it is going from bad to worse. this strike, the chemical weapons attack that killed 1400 people, the horrific attack, the brutality of it, is yet the latest terrible event in a war that has taken the lives of over 100,000 people. there are over 2 million registered refugees. the crisis gets worse every day for the people of syria and the region. iran has -- iran. there is the jihadist influence in syria. iraq.ism is spreading to this is not on the front pages every day, as it has been in the past. car bombs are going off all over baghdad. this is related to syria. this is what is happening. this is the concern for the united states, not to mention

lebanon or jordan. our allies in the region, including israel, including turkey, are under great stress and great challenge. whatever we do in terms of limited military strikes, the consequence of that will likely be the war goes on, more people die, more refugees. it will not end the war. the war will most likely be ended through diplomatic initiatives that gets us through a political solution, which is what secretary kerry talked a great deal about. that includes engagement with russia and iran. that is complicated. we have gone over news in terms of u.s.-russian relations today. but that is really the answer. it may be harder as a consequence of a strike, but it is still absolutely necessary. host: is it a civilian war in syria, a civil war? is a civil war and a

regional war. it began in march 2011 at the time of the arab spring when there were uprisings against the government, many people challenging the authoritarian rule of president assad. but it has morphed into something more than that. that still continues. there are still syrians fighting for a democratic and more inclusive government in syria, but it is also now the frontline battlefield for global jihadists . and a regional sectarian war with iran and hezbollah backing the assad government on one side, saudi arabia and qatar backing opposition with the sunni sectarian agenda on the other side. so it is much more complicated. a congressman said yesterday in the house foreign affairs pure one that no one is

either side of this, and that really public its our policy options. al-: tell our viewers about monitor.com. cover trends while covering the news. we have some of the best reporters and analysts throughout the middle east. and everyday we have original coverage from throughout throughout the region. because of our people on the ournd and our access and attention to exceptional reporting and exceptional analysis, we have tried to get ahead of issues. we have been watching this situation in syria very carefully for a long time, the rise of the jihadists. we have also been tracking what is happening in the sinai in egypt. also on the ground covering the egyptian situation, what has happened in turkey and the gezi park protests. and a lot of these debates,

there is the complication of those who had hoped for positive change in syria, and the reality of what the civil war has become. we have had exceptional articles from people inside, for example, who talk about dealing day in and day out with the regime and with the islamist forces and what life has become for them. you have been doing a lot of translating from arabic original reporting to english, right? guest: correct. one thing we believe is that to understand the middle east better, and it is a tough region to understand, you have to hear people in their own language. those people do not speak arabic , so we have focused on the ability to quickly translate articles from media partners. we have about two dozen media partners from throughout the region. and the reporters and analysts. many of them write in their

original language. host: where do you get your funding? the president and ceo of crest investment -- they fund us, and he has been committed to cross-cultural understanding and the type of vision that is essential for this type of site, which is bringing israelis, arabs, and persians together to report on the region and create a better understanding. the company, i am also looking at digital media for revenue models and other ideas so that this is not envisioned as a charitable enterprise, but we look forward to making it a profitable business as well. host: we're talking about the latest in syria with the editor and chief executive officer of al-monitor.com. democraticgo,

collar, you are up first. ok, if there are no consequences for using these chemical weapons, there will be an increase in the production and in the distribution. those weapons do not have to be delivered by rockets or dropped from planes. they can be put in height bombs and bicycles -- and pipe bombs and bicycles. it is the same way the drugs come into america every day. host: all right, what about not doing coming to rid the country of chemical weapons? guest: there is a consequence of inaction, absolutely, in syria that is the case president obama is making. if one does not stand up to the use of chemical weapons come in this case, will that be a signal to others that chemical weapons or other weapons of mass distraction could be used

elsewhere? that is part of the argument that the administration is making. and i think you are going to continue to hear more of that. there is also a larger policy question. president obama has said that this is a redline of the the international community, not just of the united states and not just a president obama. some have questioned, then why not take this to the security any violationse of the chemical weapons convention or other issues might come -- would normally go through that type of channel. but in this case, the u.s. has faced challenges from the russian position and even the british position. we saw prime minister cameron who seemed to be supportive of action in syria a few weeks ago and then faced opposition in his own parliament. president obama is in st. petersburg. rally the g 20

allies for international consensus. we will see how it goes. host: what sort of power does russia have within the united nations, within the security council? guest: russia has the power to veto. president putin said something interesting the other day. in a response to questions, he said he would consider a he wase in syria if presented persuasive evidence and if it was taken to the security council. putin hast president said is he has not received that evidence. it will be interesting to see what, if anything, president obama presents to president nugent when they encounter -- i do not say meet, but when they encounter each other in saint petersburg. post"the "washington mr. putinpage --

could easily find out more about weapons.hemical they say instead of mocking the was, mr. putin should throw support into an investigation of this atrocity. given russia's past, mr. putin cannot look the other way. steve in pasadena, maryland, republican. first, we just got this editorial. does this "washington post" editorial have any influence? on 210, president obama -- does it matter in the debate? , the issue that matters is u.s.-russian understanding in syria. what has happened is because of issues like edward snowden and other issues in the relationship, relations are not good now. president obama has had a policy

of reset with russia. i think what you are seeing with president putin is frustration that the united states is not being more upfront in his mind with him about the evidence on chemical weapons. and he does not understand why the united states would want to get militarily involved in syria given that that could facilitate the rise of jihadists, which russia is quite concerned about. collarteve, republican -- caller. , if we i was curious decide to go and drop bombs on serious and the muslims that are here in america decide to jihad over here, isn't that going to put us in a pretty precarious situation? i hear a lot of controversy that obama may be part of the muslim brotherhood and that $8 billion

has gone to this muslim brotherhood. and then a couple of weeks later, we hear about a chemical attack. i am kind of wondering, is this all kind of related? are we being used as a pawn here? guest: well, i do not think we are being used as a pawn and i do not see any relationship between president obama and the muslim brotherhood. i think what president obama and the administration are trying to do is manage a very difficult situation in syria. evolved, as we talked about, from an uprising against the government two years ago to now a regional sectarian war where the sides are not clear. and in the statement, perhaps a

mistaken statement about red lines, and the president has to do something. we have watched that develop over the course of the year. so i think the president is cautious about the use of force in the middle east. he campaigned on getting u.s. troops out of iraq. he is drawing down the forces in afghanistan. i think he is quite wary of u.s. intervention. one of the reasons for going to the congress was to get some support if he is going to go down that road which he takes very seriously. host: this on twitter -- get us out of the middle east altogether. want -- do, 80% do not want any involvement. next caller from california, independent. caller: how political do you vote wast boat -- that yesterday from the senators?

i mean, our own barbara boxer voted for this. in what universe with a vote for a strike if mitt romney was the president? thank you. guest: that is a good question. when i mentioned the polling earlier, 29% -- that is the pew poll, that support a military strike. as she indicated, there is really a strong opposition out there to the use of force. the other side that makes it is that theult president now has put himself out there. so there is this issue of u.s. credibility, the u.s. needing to do something, and the president asking the congress for his support given that he has embarked on this course. i cannot speak for senator boxer, although i did know she voted for it, but democratic

members will also feel they need to support the president. and political divisions and political unity, political divisions need to end at the waters edge, as they say, to show support. i think that is exactly what many members are wrestling with, supporting the president with his credibility and the u.s. credibility out there and popular opposition to annie military engagement in syria. host: how prone are moderate middle eastern states like the uae, qatar, oman to unrest like syria? guest: hard to say. we are seeing a time of turbulence in the middle east. they seemed well fed in terms of the leadership.

we see challenges in the rain -- bahrain. this is a regional phenomenon. part of it might be frustration, but it is out there and something -- it makes policy guidance that much more difficult. host: can the guest comment on what more the u.s. can be doing to help refugees? guest: the u.s. has been a leader in terms of the refugees. the picture shown by one of the members of the house, the refugee crisis is overwhelming. we have a piece right now, there is the possibility it could double or appreciably increase.

small states that already have their own government challenges, it is hard to imagine how much more they can take. bringing together support needs to be accelerated. caller: the president campaigned that he would not engage us in any kind of act of war. as far as i am concerned, this is. i feel that we can't keep doing this.

the thing that would be credible as if we could take a more peaceful stance. i feel that right now, we need to take a different stand and it should be more about peace. guest: i think the caller reflects a view that is out there. there are other options that the administration can pursue in addition to contemplation of military strikes. secretary kerry, time and again, has made it clear that there is compelling evidence. there might be a point where we can show more of that evidence to the international community. the washington post reporter said to show more of the

evidence to defer or deflect some of the skepticism that may be out there. the un security council is one option. the diplomatic track that includes real intensification of our engagement. i know we have difficulty with foreign policy but you have to talk to adversaries. they have the most influence with the assad regime. host: a big question ahead of syria attack. leaders not unified on their response. guest: you see an interesting debate, though that may be the wrong word. a diversity of views coming out of a random -- out of iran. we have an iran pulse.

we have reportings in persian. there are careful statements. iran supports syria and is opposed to a military strike, but they also have an experience with chemical weapons. iran was the victim of chemical weapons during the iran-iraq war. thousands died as a result of saddam hussein's regime in the world looked the other way. this is a bit of principle and foreign policy. we have noted this, and it could be an opportunity if iran sees a common interest that it could be

an opening or a bridge. in april of this year, the iranian minister used the term "redline." it is something that we should continue to watch carefully. host: louisiana, republican caller. go ahead. caller: what should have been done with a good leader like reagan, on the 22nd of august, we should have made the palace a dirty ashtray. knocked out his control, runways, air force one day later instead of announcing it to everyone now. most of the chemicals, if we could have invaded through the north in turkey, we would've

stopped those flow of chemicals. they keep bashing bush. the weapons of mass destruction were there, they were sent to syria. guest: a couple of issues that the caller raises. one is timing. the chemical attack which we knew about as it was happening, as i understand. that was august 21. we are over two weeks from that attack. another week or so as congress gets through with their business. the military is aware of this. they might have lost some targets but they are gaining targets by monitoring what is

moving around. there is a question of timing and how this is all played out. i referred to walter pincus's piece today. operation desert fox, president clinton's military strike on saddam hussein. what happened there, those strikes were significant in degrading iraq's wmd capabilities. there were reports after 2003 that the weapons of mass destruction may have gone to syria. i don't know if that has been proven or documented. but there were reports that it

may have happened. host: edward from fort washington, maryland. turn that television down and go ahead. caller: how are you doing today? the question i want to ask, i hear about the war in syria and the chemicals they use. when i was in the service, i remember using chemicals in vietnam when they killed trees. they are still dying there today. when they did use chemicals, there was nothing but chemicals. why don't people tell the truth? guest: yes, the documented use of napalm is well-known and has been the subject of controversy.

let me answer that this way. one criticism of the administration in this case has been, why not wait for the u n inspectors report? they press the government of syria to allow a you and inspection team -- a u.n. inspection team. in late august, inspectors were granted access in syria. the august 21 attack occurred while the inspectors were in serious -- in syria. that was shocking. even though they will not say who did it, the information about the type of chemical weapon and the amount of

chemical weapons used -- you cited a report earlier today utilizing video about how much may have been used in the attack. that type of information can be helpful even if it is not pointing a finger at the regime or the rebels. it can be helpful making the case about the type and amount of chemicals used. many question the timing of this. if we are waiting for congressional authority, why did we not wait for the u.n. report? host: two weeks in, we have all the evidence we need. in 15 days, we know all about who used the chemical weapons. lewis? caller: i have an idea.

why don't we, at the u.n. level, confiscate all of syria's assets worldwide and put a total embargo on any of their exports, goods, or services as a combined conglomeration of countries worldwide? why is nobody talking about doing that instead of honoring instead of bombing? and we can support refugee camps with medical personnel. guest: international sanctions are, and should be, part of what is happening to syria. the syria accountability act which imposes a number of

sanctions on the syrian government. the u.s. has implemented specific, targeted sanctions within the syrian government. they are probably -- in terms of economic effort, there is more that can be done. host: what mutual aid agreements are in place with neighboring countries? guest: the arab league has been critical of what syria has been doing. they have held back from recording a military response. it is rhetorical support for some reaction to what took place in syria.

what came out in the hearings yesterday is that the united arab emirates and turkey had a key base for operations there. the u.s. has a close relationship with israel. they are affected on the front lines. we had a couple of fantastic reports about their reaction and the government's pause. the u.s. is intensively engaging allies in the region for whatever action will be taken. host: what if the u.n. evidence shows that it came from libya

and might have been used by the rebels? guest: it is a good question. the evidence could be helpful if not determinative. it is important to keep in mind what the inspectors are trying to do. if there is detailed analysis of the samples. -- happened, let me tell you they are not there to say who did it. but they are there to say it happened. and what we think we know, if it was sarin used. we will learn some information when that report comes in. host: one of the headlines is

that the white house has dismissed intelligence on chemical weapons saying that they are far more ahead of the game than the un. guest: it remains to be seen. i am not privy to the classified information or what the inspectors might turn out. to say they know something about what the u.n. is going to produce -- i am thinking of a political advantage that comes from having evidence produced by the team as part of a u.s. case about chemical weapons use. the issue with iraq and colin powell's presentation to make the case against saddam hussein and the weapons of mass destruction capability, much of the evidence presented at that time has proven to be false. that still hangs over this debate.

that is why the extent to what they can find might benefit the administration to not dismiss that. host: one last phone call, emily, republican. caller: i would like to address the gentleman that call about the vietnam war. what i would like to know is, no one is talking about it -- i lost so many friends in the military from side effects of agent orange. no country striked on us, no country attacked us. it was chemical warfare. people suffered because of it. i do not know how anyone can have a conscience -- even though it is horrendous to use chemical warfare on the kurds, the

syrians, we were never attacked in vietnam. no one is talking about it. i do not understand why. guest: the use of chemical weapons or chemical agents in vietnam is a historical case that one might keep in mind. it is not a distinguished part of our military history in vietnam. on the other hand, this case, the use of chemical weapons, the alleged use of chemical weapons in syria, there is an argument that the prohibition on these weapons, as horrific as they are, needs to be enforced. that is the case the administration is making. in general, most people understand and believe that. the question is the means of enforcement -- does that involve a u.s. unilateral strike on

syria? perhaps with support. or is the best route through the international community to reinforce this international norm on the prohibition of chemical weapons. only the u.s. can lead on this issue -- it has made the decision it is going to enforce that through military strike. it is now looking for that type of support. this is exactly the question and the debate that you are raising. caller: -- host: andrew parasiliti, editor and ceo of al-monitor.com. we will talk to cnbc's larry -- >> rep orders are waiting outside for a board on syria.

havingundation for syria used chemical weapons that killed more than 1400 civilians. the senate intelligence committee also met this morning behind closed doors. dianne feinstein spoke with reporters after they met. >> hi, everybody. >> did they make a compelling case? >> they made a compelling case about intelligence. i've had multiple briefings. they get more and more inclusive as the intelligence community but more together. i've been here for 20 years. i don't know a time, including iraq, when there have been more access for senators to gain information outside of what they read in a report. there is briefing after briefing after briefing. based on what i have learned, i

have no doubt that the regime used nerve agents. i know there are at least 11-14 prior small incidents and now this larger incident. so i have no doubt that technical weapons have been used -- that chemical weapons have been use good i think it is important with the united nations team finds and i hope that is done as soon as possible. had askedly today, i the cia to prepare a dvd which have thee pacific -- civic instances, evidence, largely victims, and what we see mean, what pinpointed eyes mean, with convulsions mean, a number of aspects. we received that this morning. it's horrendous.

ebdre having that multiplied and we will get it out to every member of the senate and possibly members of the house. so they can come at their leisure, go through it. instance meansch in making the determination that chemical agents were used. so that is new. there will be additional briefings. there is one this afternoon. 5:30 was scheduled one at after our vote on monday. cianformation comes in, the has been very good about sharing it. so that is helpful, too. >> is that enough for you to vote yes on a strike? >> it is for me. i think that the prohibition on chemical weapons is well- founded. and after you watch exactly what happens, you can see why that is

so. they have tons and tons and tons of the stuff. they have one of the largest if not the largest storage spaces of chemical weapons in that part of the world. so if they use it and they use it as we know they are able to, in large amounts, the devastation is huge. i think 428 children dead on the ground and 1400 adults, that is a lot of people. we know that they have used to between 11-14 times before, that in smaller amounts. i looked at that as them testing it in some way. so it's a very serious situation. , think he's got to understand assad, that there is a penalty for this.

otherwise, you say to everybody, whomever it is, there is no penalty if you avoid these treaties and if you go ahead and use this terrible, terrible nerve agent. >> your colleagues are still undecided. are you actively trying to get them to vote yes on the syria resolution? >> i am trying to do specifically seeing that they have all the information. hopefully, they will go to other briefings. they can certainly be on decided -- the undecided up to the vote. but there is a moment of truth in all of this. vote next a possible next week. you intend to rally support before thursday? >> i will be a self was akin to the members. >> what was the deciding factor to shape your opinion? >> i will tell you what the deciding factor for me was.

i spent a lot of time on the intelligence and -- on the intelligence in the iraq war and the na and i voted yes. and then i saw the problems with it. see ifve tried to do is those same problems are evident as time and they are not. i think the intelligence is different, much better. it is conclusive on the fact that these weapons were used. now the rest of it, i think i'm a is a judgment call. once the administration made this call vote, i think there's a real need -- this call though, there is a real need to back it up or america is a paper tiger or it tells iran let's proceed and develop a bomb, a warhead because they are not going to do anything when push comes to shove. and to north korea, which i view as one of the most unstable regimes on earth, it says to

them, you know, we have thousands of american soldiers in south korea and have had for a long time. don't worry, they are not going to do anything. >> do you think the president himself needs to do more to convince lawmakers? >> i am not critical of the president. i think everybody's doing what they can do, including the president. tohink right now his job is talk to people at the g-20 and get more help internationally. hopefully, that will be forthcoming. i think john kerry has stepped up amazingly and made very passionate appeals, hour after hour of testimony. and others have as well. there is no lack of decision- makers getting the information. the information is coming through a few attended attended the briefings and do the reading. is -- what dork

your constituents in california say to you and how much does that weigh on you? >> it weighs a lot on me because i am very constituent-oriented. that whato question is coming in is overwhelmingly negative. there's no question about that. when you see, they don't know what i know. they haven't heard what i have heard. and i like to believe, after 20 years, that i have some skill in separating the wheat from the shaft, of knowing where we were in iraq considered and where we are with this. i don't want to see nations using chemical weapons with abandon. is we are notme the world keeper and i agree with that to a great extent. but the treaties were products

of decision-making bodies like and with these weapons do -- and you will see from the video now that they are put together and i think they took 170 videos and siphoned them down to 13 which have very positive points and this positive with the respect of the use of chemical weapons -- in an itort as -- if you leave that.ered, you can't do you look at the children and the convulsions., >> without international backing, do use those of the the president and move forward.

n all outs not a unlimiited engagement. i read the resolution that came at of foreign relationsh relations. it's limited. it says no boots on the ground. ti's up -- it's up to the the use how they deter syria.ical weapons in republican members say they will vote against any

military action in syria. louisiana isof concerned that getting involved in syria will makei t difficult iran. support against you can join our conversation as well. johntary of state

kerry is traveling t discuss on syria. he will meet with eu foreign inisters to discuss >> this afternoon c-span will be live for more discussion on the reaction to syrian chemical weapons attacks. it will include government officials, cia and others. 3:00 have that live at eastern. we want to hear about how you

think your representatives or senators should vote on the issue. you can join the conversation on phone or twitter or facebook. it begins live at 7:00 eastern time. we talked about syria with oun of our guests this morning on washington journal." host: larry kudlow, cnbc's host of "the kudlow report." the senate foreign relations committee voted to advance a plan to go forward in syria. what is your personal take? guest: in terms of the syrian -- the possible syrian attack, i favor it as long as it is tough enough to do some good

and take out the air force, assad's air force. beef up the good rebels, the moderate rebels. those can be done -- i will be an favor of it. i liked the mccain amendment yesterday, they moved us in the right direction. we will have a much tougher military operation than a lot of people believe, that is my view. i am not a foreign affairs expert. it looks like this thing is moving in a much tougher way than it was even a week ago. host: it appears that the difficulty for the president to get approval from congress resides in the house and with the divisions within the republican party. you saw a little bit of that yesterday in the senate as well. what would you say to tea party republicans, those opposed to getting involved? guest: it is going to be a tough vote. i had the armed services' chairman on on "the kudlow report" last night.

he is undecided, that is how tough it is. the credibility of the u.s. is n the line, we cannot stand by and let rogue dictators use eapons of mass destruction. it is an argument that transcends the current president -- it is about the .s., an argument about the institution of the presidency and the willingness of the u.s. to try to keep a more civilized world. that is my take. hard things to do. i do not want to go in there with one hand tied behind our

back. the mission has to be a much more muscular mission than the one initially described by the president and his people a week ago. i thought secretary kerry did a great job last friday. unfortunately, they walked that back. we will see. you have got the libertarian wing of the gop, the rand paul's, who did not want involvement whatsoever. i do not agree with them. the u.s. has to be involved. it has to be done in a meaningful, effective way. host: is there an economic argument for getting involved? guest: no. not a direct economic argument. this is about mustard gas, dictatorships, killing harmless civilians and their children. we outlawed mustard gas how many years ago? 1925, 1927, again after world war ii. do not think this is an economic issue.

it could have economic repercussions. i think that is a distant issue right now. the issue of oil always comes up with middle eastern unrest. so far as the price of oil, it has been in a narrow trading ange, $107 a barrel. no explosion. a lot of experts have told me coming on our show that iraq is the key, there is a pipeline from kirkuk that runs through the mediterranean. there is a second pipeline around the basra area. if those were stopped or damaged, that could cause a jump in oil prices. it has not happened so far. kirkuk, the northern pipeline, is about one million barrels a day. basra is more. if you cut those off, you could be looking $150 oil. that would be a disaster for the u.s.-world economy. that is a longshot, i do not

think anybody expects that to happen. thus far, we have not seen any palpable consequences. host: the "financial times," reporting with the headline "attack may lead to oil release." a strike is not expected to have any direct effect. a release from oil reserves would be used to counter any disruption. guest: on that point -- i have not seen it but that sounds right. some of these have upped their production, close to 10 million barrels a day. the saudis are very much in favor of what the u.s. is doing. they have offered to finance our operations. the u.s. itself, through racking of oil and gas, we are producing a lot more oil than we used to.

we have the strategic petroleum reserves that can be released in emergency. am hopeful that oil would not be a factor. host: what about the impact on the stock market in general, how is the market reacting to what the president said last week? now, as this unfolds, with congress coming back next week. guest: that is a good question. a hard question, so many factors in the stock market. trading yesterday, i will do it day by day. trading yesterday was very good. the dow is up almost 100 points, the price of oil fell. the price of gold, an inflation

arometer, also fell. it looked like we were moving in the senate -- that the resolution was going to pass. moving in a direction of miliry operation. on the other hand, before labor day, on friday -- stocks sold off maybe 100 points. the market is trading on many different variables -- what the federal reserve is going to do, the economic, profits outlook. i don't think the stock market has made its mind up yet. host: would it be good for defense companies and their stock prices? guest: defense companies have had a good run. we did a report on raytheon, their stock is soaring, one of the manufacturers of the tomahawk cruise mission -- cruise missiles. the defense sector has had a very good run. it had a good run longer than

syria. host: jean in ohio tweets in this -- doesn't the military ndustrial complex supply yria, egypt, iran, and ussia? guest: i don't think that is the case in syria. it is not the case in iran, we have a boycott on iran. the question of egypt -- a more complicated question. yes, going back to the israeli-egyptian palestine agreements of years ago, the u.s. provides for aio -- foreign aid to both israel and egypt. i am not an expert. the u.s. is very unhappy with the morsi regime, the muslim

brotherhood. the u.s. has, in eight -- in a de facto way, banned the egyptian military. we are continuing to meet our financial commitments to egypt. there is a debate about that. host: michael, massachusetts, democratic caller. go ahead. caller: have you or other newsmakers working for nbc ever considered how many lives could have been saved in the last 12 years if you have used -- had used your national platforms to inform people of building 7 on 9/11 or any of the other evidence proving that explosives were used to bring down building 7 and the twin towers? guest: i cannot speak for nbc news. cnbc news is a financial and usiness station.

as far as i know, we have not gotten involved, that has not been a story that we covered. i may be wrong. so far as i know, we have not covered that story. whether nbc has talked about that, i cannot say. host: there is an organized effort out there by a group who believes that the government was involved in what happened on 9/11 to call our show and ask our guests about that. we have addressed it, we will move on. gloria, las vegas, republican. caller: hi. i wanted to ask you, why is it that you carry support -- 93% of americans say no. soldiers say no. actual citizens say no. nobody wants to go to syria.

everybody is backing syria. host: mr kudlow? guest: if you are referring -- i assume these assumptions are made on the basis of polls. here are a lot of polls that had measured different angles. it is not fair to say that the american public wants us to look the other way on the syrian weapons of mass destruction, the chemical weapons. i do agree that the public does ot want an active military presence on the ground. boots on the ground. i agree with that, all the

polls show that. on the other hand, as a lot of analysts have said, once you rephrase the question and you make it clear that we are talking about using air force bombing, and that there will be no ground involvement, all of the sudden the numbers change. as many as 50% are willing to go after syria as long as we do it on a naval, air force, bombing mission rather than army or infantry on the ground. americans understand the dangers of weapons of mass destruction. they understand that assad -- because he was losing the suburbs of damascus, decided to release the gas and kill 1400 some people in a suburb, including 400 young kids. i think americans are both sympathetic and hardheaded about these things.

a rogue state like syria has to be dealt with. we do not want to get involved in a way that we were involved with iraq or afghanistan. i think polls are mixed. i will stick with the number -- 50%, from the nbc "wall street journal" poll. people are willing to go along ith these attacks. host: here is twitter. what do you think of attempts to remove the dod from the sequester as a requirement of support? guest: that is a great report. i heard that last night from a house member from california who is the chairman of the house armed services committee, which has the appropriations oversight for that. on two occasions an interview, he said that sequestration must

be altered, and that the military is short of funds. his argument was that the government is asking the ilitary to do more while giving it fewer resources. i am a guy who wants a smaller government. i believe we should be reducing spending. but i agree also that the way the sequester was put together -- half of the numbers came out of the pentagon. here we are asking the defense department to do more. they have a very good point. there may have to be some modifications to sequestration. whether that is part of a final vote to provide authority to

the administration for this military action, i don't know. it may be a companion bill, -- vote. we have a continuing resolution coming up -- the fiscal year ends september 30. october 1, there has to be a discretionary spending cr. that includes defense, the debt ceiling may come later. i expect the defense budget to be re-examined. host: what do you think will happen with the debt ceiling debate? guest: that is a great question. if i had to guess right now, i think the debt ceiling will be increased. i think it will go rather smoothly. my contacts in both political parties, more on the republican side, does not want to shut the government down and risk a default on american treasury bills and bonds. i think that is a tough vote. speaker boehner and others

believe that if you raise the debt ceiling, you have to cut he source of the debt, which is overspending. that is a point of view that i generally agree with. they might want to do it in a compromise, where there was some entitlement reform involved. they do not want to do it with any tax increase. they have made that very clear. we have already had a double whammy tax hike in 2013. the top end of the bush tax cuts were raised, and then the obamacare hikes are kicking in. it is going to be tough. i do not think the president will get his wish, which is a clean debt ceiling. those days are over. there will be some spending negotiations that could include the very positive entitlement reform. that might be a good thing. it is going to be a tough

battle. i think that people have to be alert -- this is a market issue. you asked about financial markets. nobody in the financial markets wants a debt default, that would be very damaging. everybody is worried that the timeframe is so short, the continuing resolution has to be done by october 1. according to jack lew, we may run out of borrowing capacity by mid-october. that is only two weeks. we may be fighting a war with syria at the same time. host: in the span of two months, house republicans -- the tea party, libertarian wing -- will potentially vote to approve military strikes in syria, raise the debt ceiling, and possibly do away with sequestration for the pentagon. do you think that is possible?

guest: it is a hell of an agenda. i would not characterize the gop as all tea party republicans. i am quite sympathetic to their goals of limited constitutional government. i am a reagan republican, a free-market capitalist, a onald reagan tax cutter. as you may know. i went to see a tough-minded approach to the government and to borrowing. look, the key point right now -- you could walk through all of these potential crises, i appreciate your questions -- the economy has to be allowed or incentivized to grow. we are really growing about 2%. that is not good. it is a very slow recovery. it is the slowest recovery in the postwar period.

there are a lot of reasons for that. we do not want to increase the government's burden on the economy. measures like spending reform or tax reform -- particularly tax reform, i cannot emphasize that enough -- how important and useful it would be to have corporate and business tax reform that would lower the rates and get rid of loopholes. that is the single best, most progrowth incentive we could provide. let the money overseas be epatriated into the u.s., it is like free money, over $1 trillion. it would help a lot for investment and job creation. we have to think in terms of economic growth, that is the overriding issue. unemployment has come down, that is great. i studied some of these numbers -- much of the employment we are getting is part-time. that is not great.

much of that is coming in low-wage industries -- retail, fast food -- that is not great. wages and earnings among nonsupervisory workers are very slow. hours worked are coming down. some of this is a function of the regulations in obamacare. some of this is a function of general caution by this and says. -- by businesses. many people have dropped out of the labor force. one measure of unemployment is close to 14%. job creation, investment, those are the thing going forward. when you measure it these fiscal issues that you have raised -- the continuing resolution, the debt ceiling, sequestration -- we have to think about growth. how to get the american economy growing at about 4% to make up for lost time. how to get the almost 20 million people who are either

not working or discouraged or underemployed -- how to get them back, functioning, and productive so this american economy can really lead the world again. those are the things that i think about when these policy questions come up. host: we have about 20 minutes left with larry kudlow, host of "the kudlow report." any limited strike is just 2 >> we're going to take you live capitol tings on hill. >> painted a picture of humanitarian disaster but also into a call of about 300 constituents as i was leaving today to come to this briefing. republicans and democrats are taking this very seriously.

it is pain stakingly serious. and i want to thank the president and the administration for doing something that did not occur in the determination to go to war in iraq. i read the authorization for afghanistan which i did vote for. anded the the word self-defense. that was not the case in iraq. what makes this particularly difficult is that this is about international norms and standards but it is about the devastating decast they're chemical weapons generate. the american people to understand there are no words in there such as self-defense. i remain enormously open and will be in briefings wherever they occur as we come back to washington. it is important that the

administration continues a dialogue that has never existed or has not existed in some of the other recent military operations that we've had. my decision will be based upon the -- not the issue of credibility. and i wish we would not hold that standard up. i think america has shown itself to be credible. our president has shown himself to be credible. and i'm saddened that our memory fails us in this is a resident that captured bin laden. but the point for the american people is what is their stake in this? what is the danger to them if this is not done? >> i plan to be available to my constituents throughout the next couple of days to answer or subject myself to those questions. i would guess and speculate

that part of what is represented is that chemical weapons are so hainyouse, so fluid if i might use that terminology in quotes that it is important for the national security interest of the united states to take this very seriously. >> [indiscernible] >> let me say that we have had a very diverse demuent houston in the 18th congressional district. and what they have done very passion naltly is to share their human stories of their families, of loved ones or persons they know of bodies who have been returned broken, who have disappeared or been kidnapped and the cost to women and children over a period of two years. i would say that you would expect that they would be advocates for action.

but i indicated to them and i'll say it again that i plan to listen to them throughout the process. this will be a vote of conscious. >> is there any value in president obama addressing the nation in a prime time address to sell this to the american people? >> my earlier point was do the american people understand the gravity of chemical weapons and i think more than anyone else the command ner chief of the nation would be an excellent person to art late both his mission, his passion and what is the impact and danger of chemical weapons. for those of us who live in this nation, it might be difficult to understand. i picture not only the women and children in syria but also the men and women on the front lines and ultimately people in the united states or citizens of the united states as they trolve around the world. >> they don't have much of a chance without strong

democratic support. do you see the c.d.c. giving upport to the president? [indiscernible] >> we are all going to be in discussions. i don't want to speculate on the black cause cuss. let me say this. i think the key to this is the understanding of the depth of grotesskness that chemical weapons can be and whether or not that brings you to the point of moving forward on a strike that is to deter and degrade. and that is a very finite term that has to be understood. because most people understand eliminate, terminate. and that's why this is not hedging my bets. members are not hedging their bets. what is happening is we will stay in constant briefing as long as it takes up until the time of the vote. i can't speculate what will happen in the house. i think it will be an e nor

house debate. i said what would it take as i flew up here. i don't know what amount of debate the american people can take but i think it should be an extensive debate on the floor. >> why are you not comfortable smeck lating a yes vote to your constituents? >> i am not comfortable peculating any vote. >> [indiscernible] >> i am convinced that i have to continue to receive information, engage my constituents. that is the place of many of the members including those that we saw in the various hearings except for the senate that has acted in the senate committee. but i think it is a question of getting as much facts. as i am not prepared to suggest here is no basis whatsoever. >> the evidence you're being given leave you with any doubt

the administration is saying about this is true? >> i don't want to speak about any evidence i am getting in a classified setting. what is being put in the public is the issue of chemical weapons and that has to be the issue as we go forward. >> do you sense the sentiment in the house is moving in one direction or the other? >> no, i don't. members are coming and going with an open mind along with the senate. and that they are active and engaged. and this is so different from the sphere of time of afghanistan. fghanistan was a heinous act but iraq. it is different. >> the resolution that came out that is u.s. should do what it can to reverse [indiscernible] , is that something you're comfortable with?

>> i've read all imaginations of the senate resolution and i'm going to don't explore with the appropriate officials as to whether or not we are assured that there will be no not we art there will be no boots on the ground of u.s. troops, and that i can answer for you right now but it's any of that language points to that we want to have that question. thank you all very much. jackson lee,heila the texas congresswoman. those meetings are still being held by house leaders. we go to the brookings institution, for a live discussion of -- more discussion about the u.s. reaction to the syrian chemical weapons attacks. analysts expected here will make -- will include former

government officials and experts on syria. we take you to live coverage here on c-span. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [video clip] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

[no audio] >> good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for being here to discuss syria. because of the last minutes arrangement, fiona hill is on the way down. she doesn't need to hear herself for my fellow analysts introduced. bym delighted to be joined you today and also the distinguished lineup of my colleagues to discuss the important issue of what we syria, especially the armed response or any response to the august 21st

tragedy, where chemical weapons appear to have been used in parts of damascus. conflictgenerally, the will be fair game for discussion and your questions. i would like to have an introduction for each of my colleagues. i would like to start with a question to ofuminate or bring out areas their expertise but to get the different viewpoints at the table. and then, we will speak a little bit about ourselves and go to you at about the halfway point. i am joined by roos riddell -- bruce riddell. he joined brookings about half a dozen years ago. an expert on counterterrorism and south asia and much of the middle east. his latest book is about the u.s. india pakistan history over the years. he has in a great deal of work

on counterterrorism and certainly al qaeda. and next to him is michael the ran, who spent a number of years at the national security council during the george bush administration. writing a book about the historical background in the middle east, and president eisenhower specifically but he has written a great deal about syria. this has been his focus for a decade or longer. opinion you who follow pages have seen his work. shapiro,ng us is david who spent a number of years in the obama administration working on this very issue. like others he is speaking only for himself but nonetheless he will benefit from -- we will benefit from the experience and insights he gained there. he is also the co-author of one of the greatest books of the role of nato, and the war in

iraq. and the international debate that is ongoing on the question. suzanne maloney is one of the but one ofs on iran the best experts on the sanctions history that has become so important in regards to that country. maybe not so separate. one question is to what extent is the nuclear issue of iran intertwined with the syrian chemical issue. there are red lines on both. and they are a major antagonist in syria. and now, here is the own the hill, who runs the u.s. bureau center. i appreciate your combining many things into a busy afternoon. she has written, among others and's, the best and most compelling book on vladimir

putin, a key player in this as well. perhaps the person the president is spending some time with today, and some fashion or another, and whose role in the conflict will continue to be important. let me please begin with bruce. i would like you just to recap where we stand and what we know about what happened august 21 and how airtight the case really is that his forces used chemical weapons against syrian insurgent related populations? >> the good news for the administration on the intelligence issue is a case that is pretty compelling. none of us, at least none of us that i know of, have seen the secret intelligence on which they are making the case. we have seen the summaries they have put out, and that the british and french have put out. these summaries make a compelling case that there was the use of chemical weapons on

the 21st of august. there is a lot of social media iidence that is out there. would hope that the human inspectors will confirm that there was the use of a nerve agent, sarah and gas. the question is, who ordered this done? the u.s. government traces the attack and seems to have intelligence that traces the withk to be involved research scientific. they are known by their accor mentum -- they are known by their acronym. my analysts uncovered them in the first we were people to uncover the syrian chemical weapons program. they were at the basis of it. they do not actually fire the weapons but create the weapons, bring them to the battlefield and make sure that they are put

together so that you get the biggest bang for your buck. directly to the office of the president and serious, protected by syrian air force intelligence. this establishes that the syrian government has a high-level to order this attack. we cannot say that bashar al- assad personally ordered this but the government is responsible for the actions of those who fall underneath them. this looks like a compelling case. responsible after the fact -- the capability of an enemy in the future. the intelligence there was and any member of congress who took the time in 2002 to read the classified

national intelligence estimate would discover that this was --l of dissent and full of the majority case was just plain wrong. anyone who read this would see that the nuclear laboratories theory was hogwash. who should you listen to? listen to the people who make nuclear weapons. we have no reason to believe there is anything like that over this case. and 2003, there was widespread international difference. -- french and germans and said that they are wrong. we have consent except for the onus government, who say

chemical weapons were not used by the syrian government. and also making the administration's case, this is part of the business of doing body counts. i thought the intelligence got out of the business of body counts after we said we killed every member of the viet cong six times. >> i will come back you to talk about the al qaeda affiliates, and their prospects and the inadvertent assistance. first i will go to michael. you are an advocate for action in syria. i would like to put both isstions on the table. what the case for acting in direct response to the august 21st apparent chemical weapons usage in the way that president bob -- aesident obama has outlined? single purpose discrete attack and response?

what is the more general case for changing american policy to a more muscular approach? can you really support a limited strike as the president proposes without revising all of our policy? >> this is exactly right. action,e advocates for there are two separate frames of reference. the president's frame of reference and then the john mccain frame of reference. i am more in the john mccain camp than the president. the president would say, as he did yesterday, that not just he but the international community and congress has set a red line about the use of these weapons. we cannot sit back and allow them to be used without taking some kind of action. if we don't they will be used again. john kerry said yesterday in the

the foreign affairs committee meeting that there is a 100 or send chance that if we don't do something they will be used again. the mccain frame of reference is a bit skeptical about this. concerned, that a one and done attack will not necessarily the terror assad -- will not nest -- will not necessarily deter assad. what will we do to assure that two days of attacks will have the effect that we say it is going to have? john mccain is calling for -- this is a civil war, this will not end until one side wins. we have to decide which side we are on. and support that side to win. much greater

support for the free syrian army. he says, the last time that he was shown to use chemical weapons in april, you said you would on the free syrian army and those arms have not shown up yet. i would like to see more and a much greater commitment to changing the balance of power on the ground and on the battlefield. president in an uncomfortable position. now he is talking about the assadlity of the government. mccain on bring john board that the same time he talks about limited strikes, this is to keep the democratic supporters in a narrower frame of reference. to mccain, the emphasis is on degraded, talking

to the democrats it is on limited. this leaves us with a big question. what is the overall strategy to syria and how does this fit into -- i have one more point of my own personal opinion. i think we have to do this because our credibility is on the line. our credibility across the board, in general there is a feeling throughout the region that the united states is receiving from the region, leaving its allies exposed on the battlefield. this is very dangerous for us in many ways. i think it is important to act. but the president doesn't have to answer this question about how it fits into a more broad strategy. >> i will ask jeremy to respond. of manyou are skeptical of the arguments you have just heard from michael, and i would like to invite you to say whether you think we should respond specifically and if we

should revise our syrian policy more generally. >> there is an important point of agreement between michael and i. i should emphasize this strongly. when he says it is difficult to sustain this limited, calibrated intervention in american politics, this is a very important point. here,is a slippery slope and i think that we saw this just yesterday in the senate resolution. john mccain was able to get in a further goal about changing the balance of power on the ground into the senate resolution. it is very difficult to hold the of halfwayhis sort measure that the president has proposed. we are on a slow motion walk down a slippery slope.

and we have been for some time. every decision that we make, first is to say that he must go, then it is to give recognition to the opposition, then to give assistance then to draw the red line, then provide legal assistance and now there is the western of the strike. these steps towards intervention entail both -- the last one entails the next one and each time we hear the argument that greater credibility is on the line. what that means and i think that michael agrees with this is this decision, anntial important step down the slippery slope that is unlikely to be the last. this is probably the extent of our agreement. casei look at the specific that the administration has made i have some for why we would strike now. i have some problems with this.

there are two elements to this that i think the administration has made most strongly, and i am critical to assess. the first is the question of credibility that michael brought up. refers to this as seventh-grade diplomacy. this is a popular notion out there but we should talk about it. this is the idea that gave us the vietnam war. i think we should interrogate this more carefully. at u.s. practice over the last 20 years and the use of force, which is my project here at brookings theitute, i don't see reputation of a country that is unwilling to use force. i don't see the reputation of an entry that is timid as a political culture. we have used force for issues great and small, all over the

world and has the reputation in most of the world as -- and we have done this under democratic and republican administrations, and under the obama administration. we have the reputation after the war in iraq for using force incompetently and recklessly. the reputation in the broad world beyond the middle east and particularly when you talk to this is how they see our middle eastern adventures. a country that is wasting their power and wasting their resources on issues which are active -- actually peripheral to the international policy. this is eroding our credibility in the wide world. i would note as a historical point that empires don't fall because they are timid in their use of military power.

the story of empires is that they fall because they are reckless and overuse their military power. we should take that into account. second is the use of chemical weapons, which has been raised in the idea that enforcing the norm against chemical weapons is critical to their future use in syria and beyond. misunderstanding, of what has prevented him ago weapons use over the last 100 years. it has not been the question of enforcement. there has never been an enforcement of the chemical weapons and as we know, saddam hussein used these weapons during the war between iraq and iran, and in kurdistan to great effect.

the reason these have not been used very much in the last 100 years is because there is the lack of utility in the use of chemical weapons. they are not actually that useful. it is possible that the assad regime is finding this out. but the place that was attacked did not fall to the syrian army. this is still in rebel hands. so from my point of view, looking at these issues, the red line that was strong last year was a mistake. it is important not to double down on that mistake and not do something stupid just because you did something stupid before. i think that again, michael has getint, if you are going to more deeply involved in the you need a plan to stabilize syria.

i saw a lot of plans to topple this regime. but not many plans to stabilize syria. call thehat i came to yada yada yada doctrine. topple assad, and yada yada yada, there is peace in syria. we yada yada yada'd the most important part. we never figured out how to do this in iraq and afghanistan and there is little confidence that we could do this in syria. point, yoularifying were very good -- but you are not worried that the attacks will fail in the sense of accidentally disbursing a lot of agent or not necessarily leading to a retaliation -- i assume you worry a little bit about the latter.

but you say that -- you seem to say that the americans will not be content and this will be one step to a larger quagmire that you would be opposed to. irrespective of the immediate provocation? >> i think it is difficult to imagine the attack failing on its own terms since it is not supposed to accomplish anything. send in theinly cruise missiles, and destroy some chemical weapons delivery systems. iso assume that the military careful enough not to disperse chemical weapons and kill everybody in the middle east, which is something that we looked at. i think that they can do that. but this is not even intended to accomplish anything in the syrian civil war. it simply begs the question.

>> this leads into the questions i have horses and. there a link is between the red line in syria and iran. are we improving or worsening our prospects for nuclear deal ?ith iran if we attack assad there is a new president in tehran. he seems more open to the united states. should we jeopardize this? and is there, in your mind, a linkage? will they see in action by the americans to go for the nuclear weapons that they have wanted for a long time, but held back on going the last 10 yards? >> to the extent that they interpret american passiveness for their own weapon development

programs, that horse left the bar and a couple of decades ago. their view of presidents and international norms, when it regards the use of chemical weapons was really crystallized during the 1980s, and the use by saddam hussein. and the history of the international community and as shown,revelations have there is perfect awareness by the part of the reagan administration and other western governments about what was happening in iraq, and the use of chemical agents against soldiers and civilians. this is a worldview that has been set. from that experience they believe the american invocation of international law on nonproliferation is entirely it iso be manipulated and not a fixed idea of international law, but the

utilitarian implication of these principles to further their aims. they see this as an effort to destabilize the region, acquiring a greater hold of resources for the region and quell the rising powers that may be challenging to the united states. this is the rhetoric we heard out of the ayatollah today when he talked about the chemical weapons attacks for a pretext. was not saying that the attack never happened. we have seen these different interpretations and i would argue something of a pivot i the away fromof iran the argument that this was ofple a use -- simply a use weapons by the resistance, this is a walk back by the former president this was a use of chemical weapons by the government.

but our actions, or lack the road in syria, are not going to further compel them to a nuclear weapons acquisition objective. the entire worldview was framed by the 1980s. i don't know if you will come back to this wetjen but i want to touch upon the second question, the relationship between the nuclear -- nuclear and our concerns in syria. you have this new president who was elected very clearly by the people and allowed to be elected by the establishment with a very explicit mandate, to get some sort of progress on the nuclear issue. in order to reengage with the international economy. in order to avoid some sort of of people at home. -- economy has conditions

the economy and conditions have deteriorated so much in the last few years. they did not touch the issue of serious during their own presidential campaign in late may and early june. syria was almost off the table entirely and they were focused on the nuclear issue. -- we haveohani seen many signals including the sultan of oman and a former u.s. official associated with the united nations visiting tehran and there are signals being passed back and forth between the two governments. they don't have the luxury of avoiding the syrian question. -- does require row heidi rohani to control the

hardliners, who have an ideological commitment to the longest standing ally in the arab world. and then the signal to the international community, that even on a sensitive question, iran can react in the right way. oversignal has happened social media perhaps more than anywhere else, where the president has been tweeting and a foreign minister is on facebook. but this is meaningful. the fact we see restraint in the rhetoric of the supreme leader, we don't see a rush to defend assad. this is an indication that the iranians will play carefully. the president i have compared this to, and the best case scenario for the united states, it behaves a little bit in the same fashion that the former

president, roston johnny -- kuwait in used in 1991. the relationship with saddam hussein was problematic. but this was an episode that was very contentious at home. them wanted to see them go to the barricades. because the president and his mission and mandate was to fix the economy, had to rein in his own radicals to step back from that conflict and project neutrality. has a great challenge ahead of himself but that is what he is trying to do. >> it sounds like they are unlikely to he ish hezbollah -- trying to do. >> it sounds like they are unlikely to unleash hezbollah. they don't want to take down

their own relationship with washington. orthis a fair interpretation is there a chance that there will be a quieter instigation, syria -- may attack regardng predictions in to them is a tricky proposition. what we see is the effort to embrace a more pragmatic position. but the relationship is complicated. they are closely aligned and tremendously supportive of hezbollah. them, theycontrol don't pull the strings and this is an autonomous organization. in the past, in regard to syria -- they have differed in their views and we cannot pick what they will do based on rouhani's preferences by the supreme leader to get a deal on the

nuclear issue. it is in the realm of possibility that the hardliners damascusnvested in will look for ways to respond and retaliate against the united states. this will be an important indication of where the power lies. >> i should have mentioned, suz iran and theog on new leadership and the nuclear negotiations -- this will be covered. can you remind us of the address? an --r >> mr. putin. there are many things you may want to say, as he is hosting our president. beyond that, let me put the question to you this way. it looks to me like he is actually accomplishing his goal

because i assume he cares less about bishara al-assad -- bishara al-assad -- bashar al- assad. he has another opportunity to do that and slow us down globally -- that is a good day and that is probably, therefore the way that this debate is playing out now with the rest of the world wavering and the u.s. congress not knowing which way to go, no particular likelihood of assad being overthrown, this is just what he would have ordered. am i being too cynical? how would you interpret his real interest in the crisis? this,he was listening to he would be more convinced he was making the right choice all along. on no intervention in syria.

he has actually said that recently a number of interviews and we have seen him out and about all over the place expressing his thoughts that he has kept previously behind. inad is not the endgame syria. the goal is not to see a massive mess on the map. but he thinks that we can make this a whole lot worse than it already is. in the next year he faces the withdrawal of the united states from afghanistan and he would like us to still be there. this is one area he was quite relieved that we were there. he liked the idea that we were bogged down because we may be there and some kind of way in which we would stay, not where we would be heading out like the soviet red army headed out a couple of decades previously.

now he looks at syria and he probably doesn't spend every day thinking about u.s. intervention but he spent a lot of time kgb,ng at this in the studying what the u.s. is up to. he does not think that they have thought up of anything -- thought of anything beneficial to russia. his goal in all of the activity in syria is to be restraining the united states from intervention. he does not know where the endgame is going to go and he would much rather have bashar al-assad keeping some semblance of control in the complete chaos that he has seen in iraq and afghanistan and libya. he is on the same page as some members of congress, wanting that -- wanting to know if this will be benghazi. until he gets some kind of response from the president, and

he is following closely what the president has been saying, he wants those answers as well and wants to know what will be in syria by the end of the day. front, russian and middle east policy is misunderstood. this is not the cold war. if you look at the series of alliances that russia has, they are weird. this is not just iran, this is israel. attack by a ran on israel would be a disaster for russian policy. would be aisrael disaster for russian policy. he has been alarmed by the sudden shift in the middle east profile of who is in charge. he is probably relieved that the military is back in the case of egypt.

he did not like the arab spring or any of the implications this had for the middle east or if this would create more extremist groups that turned their attention from the start -- current focus and turned to russia. ever since he ended the war in chechnya, he has been relieved that the extremists went somewhere else and he does not want them coming back. with the winter olympics in the 2013, and the billions he has spent there. there are all kinds of things he doesn't like about this. this is not the old middle east for russia and nobody else. he wants to know what the u.s. will do and what their -- what the implications will be. wanted to ask about the other al qaeda affiliates in syria. there has been concern

over the last two and a half years that the course of the war has made this group grow stronger. there is also the concern that if we -- maybe the inaction allow this to happen but also the possibility that the strike may further strengthen al-musra. >> if we step back and look at the developments during the civil war -- this started out as movement,nonviolent for political change in syria. two and a half years later it is not that anymore. this is a very ugly sectarian war. with terrific violations of human rights by the syrian rebels. began as the arab spring turned into a sectarian war that put 15% of the population and the christian minority against the sunni majority. who areut the kurds,

the third player and have their own entity in northeastern syria. this conflict between the christian front and the sunni front becomes increasingly violent and dangerous. the opposition and the resistance is incredibly fractured. the defense intelligence agency this summer could identify 1200 separate parts of the sunni opposition movement. 50%,if they are armed by there are only 600 -- this is a very dysfunctional movement. there was no al qaeda at the beginning, but now they have come on very strongly using their nearby base in iraq. we have two specific franchises operating in syria. whos the al-musra front, say they are syrian in origin,

but knowledge a lot of assistance from al qaeda in iraq, controlled by al-zawahiri in pakistan. and there is al qaeda in iraq -- they are in charge and running this operation. and have the authority from bin laden, if he was here. functions says these are 50% of the resistance your alarm bells should go off. just like anyone who tells you there are 5000 al qaeda fighters in iraq and syria. know not clear that they how many fighters they have in syria today. do not settle for oversimplifications. two significant groups have now moved into a rack, and become among the most robust parts of the resistance to the bashar al-

assad government. if we killed the playing field against this regime, inevitably that will help al qaeda. there is no way we cannot help them, the way that we degrade the syrian regime and their military capability. this to a certain degree and i have written about some ways to mitigate the impact, but we should have no delusions that at the end of the weaken, or hite going to end up having bigger al qaeda problems in the future. if you have a strategy that says, we are willing to take that risk up front now. we are confident that we know that we will get to the end, that is one thing. if we have the yada yada yada

strategy, you have to spend more time thinking about the. inadvertently, we have to help -- we will be helping them have a stronger base in the middle east. al qaeda is at a crossroads. they were threatened by the arab spring when this began. the whole philosophy is that the only solution to the problem of american influence in the middle east was violence -- this was challenged by the arab spring. it was not jihad that toppled mubarak, it was twitter and facebook. now al qaeda is in position to say, it would not work. mubarak is back. does for thesident entire region right now will

determine the vector and the importance of al qaeda for the next decade. we are at a crucial crossing point. in the more broad middle east. >> you may have riled michael the ran [captioning performed by national captioning institute] duran. i want to talk about what may be the more difficult scenario. both houses of congress in their ways, both down to the idea of the strike. if they've of vote yes, what does the president do with that new permission, does he just date, this until a future or you would support the strike? or has he essential committed himself by asking to their --

for their permission? >> let me start by saying something that is very obvious but that we should think about for a second. i agreed with almost everything the per -- that jeremy said. what i want to say that is very obvious is we have a resident who, for two years, showed not just a reluctance, basically informed the american public, that intervention in syria is pure folly. nobody can argue that president obama has been looking for a pretext to get involved. public opinion is overwhelmingly opposed to this. this is also obvious. the third factor is that the military doesn't want to do this. i have never seen body language

less supportive of the military action than what i saw from the chairman during the hearings. the president doesn't want, public opinion doesn't want to, and the military doesn't want it. here we are, talking about a proposal to intervene in syria put forth by the president. to me, this is an incredible that the president, up until this time has not defined american interest correctly in syria. this has been my point all along. are objective things out there in the world, the meeting place between objective things in the world and the way that you conceive of them. there is a point in which your conception of the world -- the way that these objectives things

-- objective things determine interests. out you maytoo far find yourself in the uncomfortable position where, if they vote against this in congress this is a real political defeat for you at home. they are severely weaker at home if he gets that no vote. a paradigm shift and recognize that we are here for a reason. this slippage is not something that happened because people were trying to go that way. all along they were trying to hold the line and defined this incorrectly. i am sorry, i am going on a little bit. our allies in the region, they -- they have all come to washington and said, you have to do something. the turks, this is an amazing

thing. not just a sunni muslim powers but the european powers, they have said, you have to do something. then,it was quiet, and this is to the white house combined with leaks to the press and now we have the turkish loud, wens saying out want an intervention. i have never seen anything like this in 20 years of following the middle east. the president could have, two years ago, taken those elements and created a coalition, and when this moment came he would have had elements that we would put out front and we would not look at unilateral american action. if i start building the coalition i will be there with boots on the ground. now he has the opposite. we do havelizes

interests in the middle east, we have to take action. nobody is there because he did not build up the coalition. we have to build this coalition now. he has to act whether he gets authorization or he doesn't. because the goal of acting is not just simply to have a military effect on the ground, this is to transmit our intentions, and a willingness to put skin in the game for all of our allies to start coordinating them. part of the problem in syria is not just what the enemies are doing but what the allies are doing. the turks are turning a blind eye to all of the people coming through. they are not supporting al qaeda. they are just letting the border open. supposedly we have a global strategy to combat al qaeda. and one of our most close partners is supporting them in

syria. this is a huge strategic failure which we have to think about. >> jeremy, assuming that there is a yes vote for both houses. you would advise the president not to strike anyway? works he is not bluffing on this. his opinion of the wisdom of a strike as a result i this attack on august 21. think that from the standpoint of the u.s. government and the chemical weapons issue -- this has always been different. you see this change in the president's view on the list of intervention. a very limited intervention in the last few weeks. this was always the case that -- this will extend back into the clinton and bush administration.

there is no credible institutional focus -- chemical weapons are considered part of them. have a completely different process for chemical weapons within the u.s. government on the u.s. government has taken that interest a lot more seriously. they have thought of this as separate. so the chemical weapons development within the syrian civil war is some and that the president was not kidding, when he drew the red line one year ago. he was not kidding. that is because of the way that the u.s. government sees chemical weapons. i don't think that this is the right way of seeing it. he will act if congress gives their permission.

hasreason the policy theloped in this way, president has always been seeking a sort of balance with they havece -- balanced on this question. official said they were looking for a response that was just muscular enough not to be mocked. that is sort of how they did everyll the way through. time something happened the united states had a response. the chinese did not feel the need for a response. we were always sort of looking for the minimum that could be and to satisfy the desire the political culture for a response. but that would not get us any

more involved. that is how we have gone to this place with the nonintervention and the interventionists are sort of pissed off. if you mention the person you would most like to answer the wetjen. we will accept your question anyhow. we will go down the line. please identify yourself when you get the microphone. we will begin with gary and harlan, and then we will go to the woman five rows back. that will be the first group. >> thank you very much. i am garrett mitchell, and i write the mitchell report. i think the person i would pose this to is to michael. moderator.e as the it has been clear that we have differing perspectives about what we should do in syria.

there is one thing that seems to me that the panel is in complete agreement on. the president has not been able to state the case for the american strategic interest in syria. i would make the observation that nearly has the panel. i would like to ask if the panel what they consider a working definition of america's strategic interests in that. and that assumes there is one. we know that obama had a similar problem with afghanistan. articulater able to what the american strategic interest was in afghanistan and i don't think he is an intelligent man. so it raises the question whether these terms that we love to use in washington, like america's strategic interest, if

this is a lot of hooey. is,owly put, the question is there such a thing as an american strategic interest, and if so, can we take a swing at this today? >> the panel did exceedingly well in discussing a lot of these things and i want to associate my views with you about russia, which we don't appreciate in washington. questionthree-part stemming from marty dempsey and said,stimony, when he yes, we can degrade and determined. can the panel tell me what it will take to the terror assad -- to deter assad. what do you think that the syrians will do next?

>> six rows back. >> i have worked on the protection of civilians in armed conflict and that inc. that is what we are talking about today. one question that has not been asked today, is, do the syrian people want intervention? it appears that on both sides there are westerns about what will happen. we are already seeing a lot of movement. given up on the un security council, who have dramatically failed following their resolutions on the protections of civilians. but there is a third path where the americans can take leadership but perhaps back away from what will be a big mistake, and will not make things better for the civilians at all ends. . the third path is going to the general assembly, utilizing

resolution 377. this has rarely been used, but this is a way to go around the security council, and major demands such as referral for both assad and others, including the rebels who violated international law, and to investigate the atrocities and create an arab league u.n. proposal that has been turned down in the security council in the past. with the french and the u.s. taking on the role of the no lie zone. time,ould give us some with a lot of planning required and would allow the president to maintain credibility and take some interest in this step back and think about what is best for all the syrian people. this will help tilt to one more

thing -- this would help to councilsport for the world government. s are providing food and taking leadership with the local people, and the opposition is doing nothing when it comes oftaking terms responsibility for these people. and -- wery expensive recognize that this is expensive anyway. down to anyone who wants to respond to one of the three questions. i should say on the more broad question, brookings is holding an event here at 10:00. i am sure that you saw the

estimate in syria -- this is in the range of 3 million. we will ask them to handle other questions. inside ofid that syria -- this does not reach the threshold of president obama. has cost us a lot of trouble with hezbollah, which by then tolerated united states and syria, president clinton and senator kerry thought that assad would the a reformist. syrianes not get to the importance, but what we have seen three years ago, this was not a popular thing to say.

al qaeda may establish new sanctuaries in the more broad public asian with her neighbors is that the syrian civil war has now been correctly seen as something that does not stay within their borders. and ken pollack -- who is celebrating rosh hashanah today and is not on the panel -- this is the regional focus that will have to be determined. within its borders, you could argue that syria, perhaps is something that we could have ignored and it ignore for many years. michael the ran predicted that we would be heading for trouble and it would not stay within its borders. this is where the u.s. strategic interests are engaged. >> i would like to add a bit to that. tookthe assad dynasty

power in 1970, we have had a hostile relationship with syria. every president from nixon until now has maintained sanctions. we have lived with that. this is a problem, but this is a manageable problem. syriae spillover from spills over into the things that matter to us. my own view is that israel and turkey are pretty kick goal of taking care of themselves, especially the israelis. that is why i think one thing the president has done over the last two years, that everyone will agree with, is to try to strengthen jordan to handle the spillover from syria. but now this is almost a flood. and deter.

no one thinks this is a good idea to bomb chemical weapons. this will disperse the chemical weapons. boots on the ground to get them, secretary kerry briefly hinted at that, but if he had not walked act -- they would have voted no right then and there. we will not go in and get this. this degrade the ability to deliver them. doable task.e it is a pretty hard task. the syrians have figured out a lot of ways to deliver these chemical weapons, and the way they delivered it in damascus this august was the way that we have not really seen. this is an opponent who is developing new capabilities making it harder to degrade. deter -- i think we can determine. the israelis have had a lot of

experience over the year and making sure they do not get a whack back. in syrians basically said 1987 nothing. they said nothing, literally. we can draw from that. the danger is this -- if assad feels the end is in sight and the christian community feels the and is site, they will do anything because they are desperate. if they lose the civil war -- it is not a russian of being relegated to second- class citizens, it is the question of mass slaughter. until that impression changes inside syria, at the end of the day the assad regime will use any weapon it has once it sees that dark hour coming, and any strategy to tilt the battlefield

needs to think about that. >> on the degrading question, the best guy to answer that is here.o is not he has written papers on the military analysis of the whole conflict, and i would urge people to see his paper on our website. again, to your question about interest, a few points -- let me make one observation that i do not think has sunk in. extremely obvious if you think about it. we have 120,000 people killed and we have 2 million refugees. the vast majority were killed by the majeed -- regime. the regime has been carrying out battles against its people, and if you have not seen them, though to youtube and see

some of the torture videos that are out there. i do not want you to see torture videos that is what the entire lookinglamic world is at. we are not doing anything about it. not culpablee are in any way. the assumption is in the islamic world that we are culpable. the assumption is we want the slaughter to go on. that is a perception we need to think about it we formulate ring ofecause the misery around syria is so unbelievable it is a matter that this -- there is going to be a lot of low back. -- blowback. this is no longer a civil war. this is a fight for the regional order. hezbollah, syria, and

against saudi arabia and its allies. it is more complex. we have the kurdish component. we have al qaeda. -- they, iran, russia understand this is the fight for the regional order. they are trying to shake the order so that it works to the advantage of their friends and then. the united states is a spectator basically. we need to do what they do and that is shaped the regional order so it works to our vantage. all the spillover that bruce mentioned is the whole regional question. this is what we are faced with, we are going to have a middle east for the next dirty years, what is it going to -- next 30 years, how do we structure this thing so it serves our interest am a each include our interest's making sure that we do not carry out as many unilateral military

operations as we will have to carry out if we do not put structures in place on the ground that can look after our interests. if we want to run through what the interests are other than this regional order question at stake in syria, there is proliferations of weapons and use of weapons of mass destruction, countering al qaeda, countering iran, and humanitarian -- there are humanitarian concerns, stopping the slaughter, and simply alliance maintenance. i would say all those. >> thanks. [laughter] where to begin? strategic interests in syria are basically, as mike about regional stability. first was the regional stability

it that he talked about, all the spillover problems. second was the weapons of mass disruptions -- distraction, the chemical weapons, and, third, the extremist issues, and those are the three core strategic interests. i agree with you that the president has -- and this panel -- have had trouble articulating and it isrests, interesting to think why. the reason the panel has is obvious, not that talented, but the president gets paid a lot more money, and he should be able to do it. why hasn't he? had ak the reason he has problem is because within our political culture, as president you are expected to accomplish a strategic interest, satisfy it, and he does not have a way of doing that.

he does not know how to solve the syrian problem, so he is reluctant to define it in stark term as we did, lest he take on responsibility and be judged against it. this is a core problem with american policy in a sort of age of relative decline among which is that we have within our political culture a sense that we are omnipotent, but we have within our presidency a sense of limits. and that is very difficult to explain to the american public. and so we are where we are. in terms of -- to respond to some of mike's points -- the horrific violence we are seeing in syria if it upon sunnis, has the effect we are talking about. sunnis blame the united states.

blame the united states, and in the case of intervention, -- in the case that we would get everything they ask for, they would still blame the united states for something else. crime youo greater can commit against a people than to liberate them and they will never forgive you for that. -- when you you get intervene, you get wrapped up in the best extra goals that you do not fully understand and you ofvitably become an object domestic politics in ways that are very difficult to control. we have seen that strongly in in egypt recently where the only thing that the egyptian political spectrum agrees on it is all america's fault. the difference we have now is that we are in not as involved,

and i think ifk, we were to get involved we would not relieve that sense of blame. we would simply reinforce it and spread it. thank you. >> i will jump in briefly, because i am not sure the question that's at what is thatng in the date -- in debate. you hear in the debate on the hill and elsewhere in washington a number of compelling arguments about what our strategic interests are or are not and have been articulated by my colleagues, so i will not go over them. the problem is, as jeremy put it best, we do not have a strategy. whether or not we have the interest you can debate, but we do not have a strategy, the president has not articulated a strategy, and neither have proponents of aggressive action, mccain.

no one has articulated a strategy that is likely to advance our interests. the idea of getting into it will shape the regional order -- these are buzz words. that does not tell you how you thathe end state in syria leads to an outcome we prefer, a stable country with democratic astitutions which is not threat to its own people or its neighbors. i do not see a way forward, and i continue to have ringing in my head the words said to be by and iranian senior official when i visited shortly before the american intervention in iraq, and he told me this is going to go very badly, not because we are going to make it go aerobatic, although it played -- make it go badly. they are looking at syria with very much the same eyes. it is wonderful for many allies to want us to jump in and use

our resources among which they may compensate us for or not, in order to advance their own individual self-interested agenda. it is another thing for the president to chart a path notard which in fact does leave us with a big problem and is a sinkhole in the middle east in a place that is already a beaconor extremism -- a for extremism. a as i said, there is because deficiency -- i said yes, i have seen this movie before, with peter o'toole looking rather dashing in his robe. we have been watching this movie for a long time.

sitting around, not with glasses of water, but talking and tonics about the collapse of the ottoman empire. the last time we saw this there were armenians in exactly the same way with a lot fewer attempts and a high casualty rate. in 1915 we had the genocide of the armenians that led to the fall of the ottoman empire. it has not been lost on putin. about thetalking collapse of the russian empire. we are 100 years out from all -- the ultimate spillover. we are still trying to figure out that regional order. unfortunately, it is not as nice

and neat as mike has been able to make it on occasions because we have no idea how this will play out. the sectarian lines are incredibly complex. putin has a strange set of alliances in the region. it is because they are not in his view russell enticing s-- regimes,zing sunni and he does not want to be put on the sectarian conflict either. he is looking to israel and others. eetin would like to s everything back the way it was strongmene nice who were keeping everybody behind closed doors. this is the mess we're in now, and the problem is nobody knows how we are going to sort it all out. in 1914, maybe

we should have a screening of "lawrence of arabia," but it would show us that what we are dealing with today. ,> another round of questions we will begin in the second row, and then work back. thanks very much. we were talking a lot about the justification and the strategic frame in the context of the , perspectiveck attack. my question is about the aftermath. bruce mentioned the lack of a syrian response to the attack on the nuclear reactor -- what is the most likely response from serious and hezbollah question mark -- ?

do we expect assad will take a limited attack, or do we expect a response through an attack on israel, further destabilization response to u.s. allies in the region, and what will that curve look like? bet is next most likely to indications of a u.s. strike? >> we will go to the gentleman across from each other halfway back, in the blue tie and -- >> thank you. my question is for suzanne. you describe for us how you see on syria.spective i wonder if you could also go ran what role you see it iran and- role you see

the president's decision saying that he feel he should take action in syria, but also his decision for the congress. i heard a report that a few days ago we sent 600 rebel fighters who we trained in camps in jordan back into syria and not only were they not welcome by the rebel elements in syria, but they were routed by the syrian army. does anybody have any information on that, and at least you could talk about what we are doing in jordan these days. >> why don't we start with fiona. >> most of these are more specific. >> i will speak again to this issue of the role of iran in motivating a response. it has been articulated by

this strike will have an important demonstration effect for the iranians to demonstrate american resolve, and forced the nonproliferation regime, and i believe that is sincere. it has a utilitarian role in terms of persuading congress to produce the outcome the administration would like to see. win when itasy comes to getting votes on that bill. it makes sense for the administration to continue to refer back to that issue. clearly, the administration and the congress have had a contentious elation ship on iran -- contentious relationship on iran. the ministration has considered sanctions that have been passed on the hill, and they think that

he'll for in fact passing those sanctions and helping to persuade the iranians to come in a more serious way to the negotiating table. i believe it is inevitable if the president were to seek a party for more forceful action against the iranian in their program he would have no difficulty. i do not worry about any precedent set by the debate we're are seeing today on syrian resolve.iranian clearly some a they are recognizing how serious this set of issues is. they do not want to be on the wrong side of a shooting war with washington at this moment. and that is why the an awkward attempt to shift their public rhetoric on serious in a modest way. if not in fact begin to pivot away from assad himself. >> jeremy, either of the two

questions remaining. >> i will try to handle the most likely response about syrian hezbollah to an attack. it is difficult -- the thing i the learned in the two years of trying to understand the syrian regime is i have no idea what they are thinking. i think that broadly speaks for most of us. i do not know why they used chemical weapons in this particular instance, because i do not think it was a smart move. wondering to the degree to which it might have been an accident. to predict.ficult having said that, i will make a prediction. i think it is unlikely that we will see either syrian or hezbollah escalation outside of syria in response to this

attack. the reason for that is because they have enough problems. they have enough enemies within syria to occupy their time and they are not really looking to expand this war, either to israel, united states, or to turkey. they have shown a consistent pattern of that. they do have some escalation , and inwithin syria particular they can drive more refugees, they can commit more humanitarian atrocities in order to expose the high progress he -- the hypocrisy, and they can conceivably challenge the united states by using more chemical computing --re confusing ways. they also have many alternatives to turn to beyond the weapons in terms of conventional weapons

for killing people. they have not really used all of their arsenal, and they still have places to go. there is a possibility that action will make the syrian civil war bloodier. there is research that shows typically when there is an outside intervention in a civil war it becomes luckier because one side feels the need to step up its game and because other external supporters feel the up their side. so that would be my prediction. on stewart at -- j said about seventh grade diplomacy? basis ofing on the credibility instead of diplomacy. >> that is the level i am on. [laughter] we do not have to get to seventh grade because that is basically international relations and

politics in the middle east. i know exactly what i sought is thinking and i can explain it right here. is a mistake that educated people make. they think it is more difficult than it is. the heart thing is figuring out what is going out on the ground. once you know that, it is simple because they want to win. they want their friends to win, they want to win, and they want us to lose. it is not hard. the tools they have at their disposal to win -- they are thugs, right? -- all you have sopranos,"tch "the and then you know what they are thinking. why did they use chemical weapons? , that is a they suck military term. their regular military cannot take and hold territory. it cannot. it is shocking the extent to which they suck as a military.

for a year, for a year they have been trying to take this place and they cannot. the youtube videos are beautiful , by the way, of showing syrian tanks being blown up in this particular neighborhood by the -- because it has big boulevards with buildings around it and the tanks are just sitting ducks. they tried, they cannot do it, territorytegic because it is the gateway into the airfielde to where the iranian support comes in. if they hold on to it, this is the battle for damasus is what failed innd they have conventional terms, so they went to unconventional terms -- it is clear, when her military talks about clearing in afghanistan, clearing the population center of fighters. when he says clear, he means

clear, clear the whole population out. why did he do it while you and inspectors were there -- while the un's inspectors were there? he is sending a clear message to all the syrians who might think of one day taking up arms against him. you do that, i will wipe you out, i will wipe your family out, and don't you for a second think that the united states, the international community, the u.n., or a buddy else will help you. i will show you how tough i am. even when the inspectors are here, i will ask you. -- i will gas you. population,lam the brutalize his own population as he has been doing. they might do some other things externally and they have done terror attacks in turkey to deter that turks. they were probably responsible in some way for those rockets

that went into israel. that is to make us fear that e maybe some wider world war iii. the iranians are the same thing. they created hezbollah, they are backing i sought, they want assad to win. publicly they play in this way and that way. on the ground they are supporting. there's one conversation that never takes place. hamenei andh k they say to him, we cannot solve serious. the united states is a superpower. is use of force counterproductive. if we use force in syria it will make it worse, so we should forget it.

that conversation never happens. how do we cause maximum pain to the americans, and that is the way they do it. that is the way we need to do business as well. we do not have to solve syria. our interests are punish our enemies, create a framework that allows other people to get on the ground so we did not have to do it. that is international politics. we have to make our side stronger. who is who is our -- >> our side? >> the saudis and the turks. we want to make it run suffer and we want to make assad suffer, and then we ask who can line up to do that who will not cause us pain? there is a lot of people out there we can work with. >> bruce?

[laughter] >> jeremy says where to start. let me start with a question asked before, protection of civilians, whi i am afraid we have ignored, because there is a genuine two-minute hearing issue here. ist the syrian people want an and to the civil war. thereo not care whether are chemical or conventional weapons. art of the debate has become lost from reality in that sense. the best dating is an -- the best thing is an end to the war. is a cruise missile strike, being told by this administration, and we are told by the initiation how many is aes are there -- likely the searing conflict will be were six months after that? there is a consensus that it

will be worse in six months. are there no really good options here? let me turn to the questions of allies. i mentioned earlier since 1970 the united states have had a hostile relationship with syria. there were two occasions when that was different. the saudis1990 when asked us to be the best friend of the syrians. their flag actually came down pennsylvania avenue as part of the victory parade. that did not come out so well. saidsraeli governments we want to make keys with the assad government. we think they will be easier to make peace with than the syrians. why? i would not spend a whole lot of time listening to what the todis or the israelis have

say. their advice has been taken in the past and has not been very good. and new friends, the general, says do not do it. stay out. in this, youall will create a hornets nest. i would not take his advice either. there is no reason to believe he will be better in predicting the future of the middle east than his predecessors. i do not think our allies'advice should be the determining factor in what we do here. our interests, as you have rightly said, we need to hear from the president for the congress votes on national television, in a national speech, defining what our national interests are and what is our strategy to get us there. not a bunch of stuff about a red line. the strategy for the cover front of our national interests in syria.

the reason why we have had a heart problem here articulating all that is we have not heard yet from the man who the american people want to hear from the most. >> very true. >> i think we will stop there. thank you all for coming. [applause]

>> we will have that discussion online at c-span.org. not serrano tweets, i will vote for war. writes, i willry be actively encouraging my colleagues in the house to join me in opposing military action against syria. blake, republican of texas ,

addings to ensure he is input of people he represents. you can join the conversation at facebook or twitter. yesterday, the senate foreign relations committee approved the use of military strikes against syria 10-7. tonight, we will be hosting another c-span town hall meeting to talk about syria and related events including yesterday's discussion on u.s. policy and its effect on the middle east. here is a look. ,> in my own personal opinion even a punitive strike at this point could have an important psychological impact on the civilian population. the radicalization that i have

seen develop over time was actually stopped for some time because of positive developments in syria, it is now starting up again as chemical weapons are being used and there is no response. my own personal opinion is that if there is nothing else, and i do not agree with a limited strike, but if there is nothing else, the psychological impact of sending a message is very important. >> those remarks from yesterday's discussion at the atlantic council will be shown in its entirety in just a moment. again, 7:00 p.m. eastern, our townhall on syria. your calls on how you think representatives in congress should vote on the measure to use military force 7 p.m. eastern time. on our companion network, c- span2 is featuring book tv starting at 8:00 eastern with a

riedan andetty f later, david levering lewis on his two-part biography of w.e.b. dubois. now, the panel on syrian military strikes. this is from the atlantic council. it runs about an hour and a half. >> ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. my name is frederic hof and on behalf of fred kemp, the president of the atlantic

council and michelle done, the director of the center for the middle east, i would like to welcome you all to today's program. this is a joint production of at the atlantic council. over the past two weeks, we have witnessed a truly extraordinary chain of events that began on the 21st of august with a chemical attack in a suburb of damascus. , i thinkllness of time we will probably know for sure what motivated the assad regime to take this step and what it was actually thinking. in terms of trying to get away with it.

what is objectively clear at this point is that this was a criminal attack on defenseless civilians. it was a clear violation of international prohibitions against the use of chemical weapons. challenge todirect the credibility of president obama and the united states. particularly, in the wake of warnings about red lines and game changers. one striking feature of this chain of events -- sorry, has been the manner in which the obama administration has reacted to the key event itself. , the burdenr a week of articulating outrage and

making the case for a powerful response fell mainly to secretary of state john kerry. when the president and the secretary of defense chuck hagel effect atir combined times was to blur somewhat the clarity of secretary kerry's message. weekendhis changed last when president obama announced he had come to a decision on the use of or -- of force, and would seek from congress and to useizing resolution, " the armed forces of the united states as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in the conflict in syria." in order to one, to prevent or

deter the use and proliferation within, to or from syria of any weapons of mass destruction. including chemical or biological weapons or components of or mckinley girls -- materials used in such weapons. two, to protect the united states and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons. engaged is now actively in hearing from the administration about the national security objectives and strategy in which likely cruise missile attacks on syrian targets will be embedded. this is of critical importance. workof the syria related need13 has centered on the

for an objectives-based u.s. strategy towards syria. clearly, president obama believes contrary to the assad regime and its orders that there is no military solution to the syrian crisis. obviously, he would like to see a diplomatic solution consistent 5ith what was agreed to by p- in geneva in 2012. obvious that the president wants military strikes to bring about the deterrence and prevention results mentioned , clearly there must be a syria related national security set of

objectives that transcends the response to the horrible events of august 21. prior to that date, the assad regime had already killed tens of thousands of syrians using mostly conventional munitions in a campaign of mass terror, one that has produced over 2 million refugees and nearly 5 million internally displaced persons. a campaign having enormously negative affect on american allies and friends in the region . prior to that date, the assad regime had already established itself as a palpable threat to the peace in the region. prior to that date, the united states needed an objectives- based strategy for syria. as military one now

action is contemplated is manifest. on focus today, however, is what is directly in front of us. the prospect of u.s. military strikes in syria and congress's debate over whether or not to authorize the president to move forward. we have three excellent speakers who will tackle this subject from three different perspectives. pavel is an atlantic council vice president and director of the center on international security. for nearly 18 years, he served as a senior official in the office of the undersecretary of defense policy and the department of defense, after which he served on the white house staff as a special assistant to the president, working for both president george w. bush and barack obama.

he brings to the table a wealth of experience on u.s. defense policy and strategy, all of which is extraordinarily redolent -- relevant to the situation we are facing in syria. dr. elizabeth o'bagy is a research analyst at the institute of the study of war where she studies syrian politics and security. she is also involved in humanitarian work as the political director of the syrian emergency tax force -- task force. her major reports on the syrian opposition include, the free syria,army, jihad and and syria's political opposition. she is widely acknowledged as an expert on the syrian armed opposition and has done extensive fieldwork.

as the u.s. president and the public agonizing over what is to be done and its impact of united dates, -- states, elizabeth will bring what you needed focus on the alternatives that exist. finally, faysal itani is a fellow with the rafik hariri center. he is a relatively new and very welcome addition to the center. al is a middle east analyst whose focus is transition in the arab world before emphasis -- working on the council, he worked as a risk analysis analyst advising international organizations on political, economic and security affairs in the region.

faisal will help us shape the discussion of potential regional implications of whatever it is the united states is about to do in syria. i will ask each of the speakers to frame the key issues as they see them and to do so within about eight minutes each. we will then turn to questions. which, given the size of the audience, will need to be tightly focused. i will attempt to do a brief wrapup at the end and we will make every effort to adjourn promptly at 2:00 p.m. i would ask you to switch off cell phones, and with that i will turn to barry. >> thanks very much, fred. thanks, everybody for coming. brief,ing to be really partly in the interest of time to hear from you.

of what iause of lot have said has already been in print. will be brief and a little provocative and then we can discuss it. i always start with conversations about the u.s. role in the conflict in terms of its military role, what are the mission objectives? i will outline four or five. i did this before some of the leaks came out that described it. it is sort of a ladder. you can see increasing levels of ambition, the u.s. is increasingly involved for good or for ill and that depends on your opinion. the first objective would be to deter further chemical weapons use and we will talk about the military manifestations of these mission objectives. the second is to more comprehensively takeout assad's air force and ground force units , many of which are the delivery vehicles for chemical weapons.

they also serve other regime aims. third would be to increase the quantity and quality of weapons going to the rebel groups. this gets a more involved on the ground. this gets us more obviously picking sides on a political military bases. fourth would be the establishment and enforcement of a no-fly zone so that we take away assad's use of air power completely. this is a more sustained operation and would involve much more of an investment in terms of our military ownership of aspects of the conflict. fifth, and we heard this from general jones on piers morgan objectiveday, another would be the establishment of safe areas in some portion of syria on the ground that would have to be protected and managed by some forces on the ground,

because proxies or direct forces from a coalition. i think about that letter -- ladder and for me that drives the rest of our applications as a military role in the it. that,s point, i emphasize it looks like the operation is definitely focused on objective one which is deterring further use of chemical weapons by the assad regime. i say there is a little bit of two and three in there also. i would love to hear from our panelists as well. i think there will be some targets of the eventual military campaign that would address air force units, air force bases, ground force units, ground force bases, associated military command and control and communications facilities, etc. we heard from senator mccain after he met with president

obama outside of the west wing, that there is also a plan to increase the quantity and quality of the weapons that the united states will be providing to vetted rebel groups. -- the more ambitious but one goes up this latter, there are more implications of military conflict. we will hear some of that from faysal. increased danger of u.s. entanglement. it increases the probability of syria in retaliation and potentially iranian military involvement. if assad thinks we are only going after objective one, i think most of the interests he would be thinking about would be, i will treat this like a hurricane. i will hunker down in my bunker. when the storm is over, i will do everything again. probably with a little more freedom. if it is more, i am going to hurt core assets that are

available -- valuable to us and the military, then i think you start -- assad and the military, then you start making the price too high for them. that is the framework i use to thing about this. there is broader consideration beyond syria as well. i wouldn't under emphasize these. the syrian part is really important. think -- i am a former math major so i did the math. , has beenpeople roughly the average of being killed. when you think about the two and a half week delay between when we thought the operation was going to strike and the earliest time congress can vote the next week that is a shame. we are talking 2500 people killed while we go through this ss that we are going through. -- process that we are going

through. in terms of broader considerations, there is a classical theory of deterrence that is relevant here. the president established a policy that chemical weapons use would cross his red line putting -- securitytates to commitments on the line. there are two elements of deterrence that are relevant. deterrence is threatening some sort of cost or punishment on an adversary that crosses the line. there are two aspects of that. it should be swift and very effective. second, the exact nature of that punishment should be uncertain in the eyes of the adversary. thomas shelley called it a threat that leaves something to chance. you don't want the adversary to know exactly what you're going to do, because he can play out more precisely and get a better

estimate of his cost, of his retaliation, etc. you want them to know that something really big, really harmful and really swift is coming their way and you don't want them to know exactly what it is going to be. with those graduate school 101 deterrence tenets, i would say the obama administration has succeeded in violating both of them fully and frontally with the leaks that were let out about the timing, expected timing of the operation, the objectives, the numbers of targets, the types of targets. more detail than i had when i was doing planning in the pentagon. result now has a wonderful amount of time to prepare fully for what he thinks is coming and what we think is coming. as i tweeted a few minutes after

the president's announcement, i said certainly assad will be moving in with her units into civilian neighborhoods. that is what i would do. and moving civilians into military areas. i think we have seen some reporting of that since then. i think the ideal affect -- i think about this -- what do you want assad to take away from this operation when it is an -- done? you want him hunkering down in his bunker, bombs all over the place for a sustained terrifying. of time. -- theson you want that word of time. the reason the you want that is so it will never think about doing it again. you want him coming away not the thinking about possibility of resorting to weapons of mass destruction again.