him on this topic as he culminates his service. hasall of his positions he in an indomitable force in favor of the defense of this nation. it is in that context for to be herekie and advice,t offering his and i am going to stop right there so we can get right into the discussion.

>> good morning. inc. for the introduction. the -- thanks for the introduction. will you please join me for a moment of silence? thank you. here is what prime minister tony blair commented on that day. this mass terrorism is the new people. it is perpetrated-at the who are utterly indifferent to the .anctity of human life we have to come together and fight it together.

he could have written that yesterday. the 9/11 commission report concluded the attacks were a shock but none -- should not have come as a surprise. of warning.ngthy -- plenty of warning. they are more lethal than al qaeda was on september 11, 2001, yet the president has likened isil to the junior versus the team. safer.argued america is nothing is further from the truth. i listened to the president's

remarks a month and i welcome them. there are several elements i support. willinghrough a coalition, ordering more forces,es and u.s. stepping up intelligence collection, cutting off their , curtailing the flow of foreign fighters, and training and he would thing modern opposition forces. theve folders right for president and his wartime powers, but i have a share my viewsto about what can be done. his perspective is based on my years as chairman of the armed services committee and informed by a long trip. i listened, and i asked questions.

they gave me blunt answers and hard truth. our allies are on the front lines. aree is a sense of american disengaging. relationship in the region is at a tipping point. what is areble is these allies ready to bear the burden of the fight. stability in the region defense on the feeding -- defeating isil. it is in our interest to be there. the longer we wait the more lives will be lost.

allies. kinetic month.could wait another certainly not longer than that. what must we done? we need a comprehensive strategy. theuch as i want president's approach to work, i believe the strategy he outlined last night will not get him there. i sense he allowed all it takes to limit our chance for success. politics to limit our chance for success. it. ourot sugar coat strategy must recognize is an and treat it as such. when does the threat become imminent.

why wait until it does? we must have a comprehensive strategy that stopped any plot against our interest now. with actionll force isil beforestill -- they get more steam. notice i did not they manage isil. snapped at a doubter on his d-day attack. there is no other option. you must channel the resolve. a go slow strategy gives them space to thrive and blend with every month 500

foreign fighters join their ranks. every month they raised $85 million in revenue every year they brutally execute sunni moderate who might be convinced to work with us again. soon all that is left is a cowering population unable to resist. movement.sunni getting sunni to reject them is key. while we wait we are missing the i sunnito get iraq h leaders on board who can beat for their people. the job will be harder this time. the sunnis must believe we have their back if we stick our next

out. they must leave they have a future in iraq. and the us-led coalition must engage with the sunnis and make them understand this is not a sectarian fight against them. rebuildto get in and relationships. if moderate sunnis slip through our fingers, they are gone. and with them our we have touccess. reconnect security capabilities that were lost when we left iraq . all will be needed to maintain postwar security and stability. the process has to start immediately. hard in iraqisil and syria at the same time.

and iraq only approach cannot work. they can never be defeated if they have a haven as big as syria. iraq or eastern so we do not let al qaeda elements into the country. if we want them defeated we need them surrounded. a coalition force empowered by american could do just that. we need the area to be held by friendly's.

-- friendlies. is aresident implies this key to defeating isolate in syria. let's be clear. there have been bipartisan starting in the white house. arming rebelssaid in syria has always been a fantasy and there was not as much capacity as you would hope. i support this for the long term security of syria. but this is not a formula for success. oris not timely enough

decisive enough. the u.s. must take the lead to build a coalition, which the president has finally started. earlier, thed is awful. they all have military capability they all want to not isil on its back. they want our help and need our help. ignoring them is a way to end up friendless and with little influence in the region. let's not forget our allies are watching and wondering if they can ever trust the u.s. again.

is not aneadership option. we are the piece in the puzzle. andability to control air sea space. the ability to put troops in hostile territory. to communicate on the battlefield. that is how we pull these stations together. this is no light left. the man who held together the most difficult alliance in eisenhower,ght d had it right when he said, only straight can cooperate. witness can only -- weakness can only beg. while many have doubts about the obama administration's willpower, america's ill carries weight in the middle east. -- america still carries weight in the presidentt.

needs a team of diplomats. and soldiers on the ground ushering every player to the same purpose, not just this week but on a system aimed basis. sustained basis. now is the time to match words with action. they have a stake in this fight. starterolding the pistol. the time to pull the trigger was yesterday. most of us cringe at the term "boots on the ground." we must contemplate what that actually means. some have called it hostile forces. that is a red herring. the best way to make sure we never have to drop a core into iraq is being smart about using

the right boots on the ground. the president has already made this the fiction. this is the right decision, but more can be done. it means empowering moderate where and when we can. it will take troops, but it will not take divisions. there is no way around it. will be standing on fan. americans will be shot at and shooting back. no other way to do this. this strategy is not without risk.

neither is the president. it would be wrong to sell it that way to the american people. this is a dangerous business. it is dangerous any time we have our sons and daughters take to the seas and shores to defeat an enemy. the only thing more dangerous is waiting. he must not rely solely on counterterrorism. wars are not won by counterterrorism at all. the 1990's roofed as much. -- president has implied roofed as much. -- proved as much. it's like trying to solve a puzzle with a single piece. growth of stopped the isil. ae president wants to use

light footprint now in hopes he does not have to use a heavy foot rent later. -- footprint later. this was not successful in libya . it has short term benefits. it will be cheaper in blood and treasure now. i want our coalition to go all in so we do not risk using more blood and treasure later. i would much rather fight isil in iraq and. then to fight them in lebanon and kurdistan tomorrow. fortune favors the bold. isil is a threat we all share. of the freeenemy world. they must he stopped. i believe the president is finally waking up to what must we done to stop this people.

action, hewe take will have my support. once herunished us teen years ago. it is the responsibility of all today.- 13 years ago it is a responsibility of all of us to make sure that never happens. [applause]

>> they cute, mr. chairman, for those -- thank you, mr. chairman , for those remarks. i neglected to introduce myself. i am the direct your of the project here at the american in the toot. -- institute. i was disappointed by the president's speech last night. i thought it was at best a adequate. i but in have also been working on an thatnative i will publish will be available tomorrow, hopefully in the morning. issue youcus on the

raise, the need to focus on the community. that is what i didn't hear in the president's speech. i heard a lot about working with the kurds, not working with it is liked a strategy focused on the periphery, that was focused on outside groups, whereas you asked lane fundamentally a problem in the sunni arab community. do you think there is a risk we may appear to be the iranian air approach?ursuing this is there a danger to what the president is doing that seems to be ignoring the sunni community?

ask his strategy holds risks. -- .> his strategy holds risks what you have to do is mitigate risk. as i mentioned, history favors the bold. this is not a time to be piecemeal invest -- piecemeal ling this. they are that goes by growing while we are waiting. when i was talking to king abdullah, he said, we are ready to go right now. threat.lly see the he said, we are ready to go today. i think when we get the sense of

urgency, when we say i liked a lot of things the president said, but my concern is not what he says, but what he does. i think what we really need to be focused on is what he is going to do today, what he is going to do next week, what he is going to do a few weeks from now. have an election, and there is a temptation to start talking about other things. .e needs to zero in on this his legacy is going to depend on this. not want tosh did get involved in war. he wanted to be the education president. on 9/11 he was in a school. that was his big inning.

-- they can -- big thing. i was called down to the statehouse. was what he wanted to work on. you don't get to always decide what you want. it does come at you, and you have to take life the way it is. he needs to be focused on protect inc. our interests around the world. that means to be his overriding opus. -- focus. time will tell, but history shows he doesn't fit with anything -- stick with anything on enough to get it done. if he can generate a will to next twoh this for the years, i think history will treat him better than if he

leaves with all these problem. i said i just went to the middle east. i also went to the pacific for the same reason. we have problems there. we have leaders concerned with what our resolve is. prove we can stick to something. our men and women in uniform will follow whatever orders are given. they will do what is necessary. asking our military to do more and more. the other day they are going to help solve the ebola crisis. at the same time we are taking away their resources with the it doesn't make sense. >> there has the immediate reaction -- has been immediate

reaction to what the president aid. let me ask you a couple of hard questions about what i think is on people's minds. we are talking about the islamic yet takent it is not against the homeland according to administration. people ask why is it such a big threat. why is it a bigger threat than al qaeda in africa or hezbollah? them are not currently attacking the united state. what makes you feel isolate such a great threat to the united faith it should be our priority compared to these other problems it should be as priority compared to these other bestem. >> isil is the

led, obviously the best finance group we have come in contact with. they were using extortion, s to gainmany method money. he took all the banks money. then they took over the , and they areyria deriving so much revenue. they are taking in $1 billion a year. if you look at history, the reason i call them ifo -- isil - the americanlet people know this is one threat we are talking about. their goal is to take us back to the way they lead the area called

t between 600 and 50, the arabs held that region until , almost 1000 years. they want to go back to that. they want to eliminate the borders and the whole area and form this that would give them which tos area in breed and prosper and send around the world the terrorism they are working on. if we had hit hitler a little earlier think of the lives we could have saved. but no. you wait until the threat is so overpowering, we wait until pearl harbor, we wait until poland falls, until france falls, until england is ready to fall. then we say, oh,.

there's a threat. you know, leadership looks ahead. they see threats in the future. sometimes threats can be eliminated before they ever become a threat. that's true leadership. secondary leadership is one that perceives a threat right in front of your eyes and still marshals the forces to take care of it. lack of leadership sees a threat and says, somebody behind me will take care of it. we need to step up right now and take care of this threat. >> i think it's terrific and very well said. dd i think the point is often lost on people that you are making. the region where these groups are operating matters. a group in the middle of the sahara desert is generally less than a threat than in the heart

of the middle east. >> the whole time i've been in congress we've talked about becoming energy independent. 22 years. we haven't done it. we could do it. i mean, there are places in this country right now where we're really doing the job. we're really developing our resources. they're on public land, and they find ways around government stalling tactics, and they're working. but think if we really took the effort, if we really set a -- jfk. let's go to the moon. okay? let's become energy independent. if a leader steps up and really was sincere about that, really said, we're going to win this fight, we could become totally independent. we wouldn't need oil from that region. we have a lot of allies that do. so it is important. it's very important. it's going to remain important for the foreseeable future. we need to be a part of that, because there is no other america in the world. who else -- who else is going to step up and take care of this if we don't?

china? russia? how do we feel about what's happening in the ukraine? these people see opportunities because we've been trying to lead from behind. it is time. >> you have spoken eloquently about their willingness and eagerness to fight. one of the arguments the white house is making against sending u.s. ground forces in is that it would be much better to have indigenous ground forces, regional ground forces leading the fight. there are some people even saying there are iranian forces on the ground and it would be better to let the regional countries solve this problem. people have gone so far to say it is counterproductive to send american forces in because it'll just encourage the regional states and iraqis not to do their jobs. what do you make of those arguments?

>> it's not either/or. as i mentioned, we're not talking about sending in divisions that are going to do another iraqi freedom. what we're talking about is using the local forces there, iraqis, syrians, helping them rise to the capabilities that they have. there are short comings they have that we can fill. we can do the logistics and the communications. we can have -- provide the air support. and there's nobody that can plan and carry out missions like we can. i'm not saying we push the iraqis aside, go full bore in and say, okay. we're here. that is the wrong thing because that would then give the arab world something to say, yeah. these guys are coming in trying to take over again. no. we want to help them win their fight, the iraqis want to do it, jarodanians want to do it, saudi

arabians want to do it, but they need us. there are certain capabilities we have nobody else in the world has. that's what we need to do. not go in and take over and make their problem our problem. we need to help them solve their problem, which is also our problem. >> and you're arguing that our air power is not enough. we need to have forces on the ground to help them. >> i mentioned, we tried that in it libya. it hasn't worked. i talked with the other day with the chief of our air force, general wells. we have the most powerful -- there is nothing to stand up to our air support and those people on the ground when they see those planes coming, they don't want to be there. but after the bombs drop, somebody has to take the ground. somebody has to hold the ground. if you don't, they just come back. you know? >> so one of the things i think came out loud and clear from the president's speech is he

really sees this as a counterterrorism problem and he wants to pursue a counterterrorism approach. he is basing that approach on a couple of specific models. he mentioned yemen and somalia as being the models of operation that he wants to repeat in roirk and -- in iraq and syria. there has been a fair amount of this written as we follow yemen and somalia. what do you make of that notion? >> it doesn't -- it doesn't work. you don't -- yemen and somalia are a good example. they are still very strong. even though -- >> pardon? >> the al qaeda franchise. >> right. right.

and we've made gains there. we've killed a lot of their leaders. we've done things. we've made improvements. but that could go on foryears and years. in the meantime, they're getting stronger, also. they're able to train and send out people that -- one of the top bomb makers is in that area. we haven't been able to get him yet. he's the one that did the underwear bomb and other things that he's able to do from that area. so that doesn't totally work. we need to clear ground and hold ground and deprive them of any places where they can train and foster and continue the spread of their terrorism. >> right. and as we are tracking here, in fact, al qaeda in the arabian peninsula has established a new safe haven in yemen and eastern yemen and is pushing back into territory that was theoretically cleared earlier.

although we killed the leader of al shabab, he is not the first leader we've killed, and the organization is very quick to replace him and continue operations. so i think it's interesting that the president should point to those cases as being the evidence that this is going to work in a much harder, as you pointed out, much harder situation against a much more lethal set of enemies. >> well, another example, too, that i wondered why he used it, saying that america was the leader that pulled the world together to fight russia in the ukraine. i was in a meeting in the white house a few weeks ago, and the president was giving us a synopsis of problems around the world. i said, you didn't mention crimea. is that just gone? and the basic answer was, yeah. that's gone. well, since then we've also lost eastern ukraine. and to use that as an example,

when the ukraine last week signed a cease-fire basically to keep from losing their whole nation. i don't think that's a good example of american leadership. i think we could probably find other things where we did a better job. that's like saying custer was a good guy and we should follow that example. no. custer might be a good guy but that was probably not a good example that we would want to use in going to war. >> certainly one wouldn't want to ignore the last battle in custer's career. >> right >> and only focus on other parts of it. i want to ask you a couple quick questions about the congressional situation in response to a couple things and then turn it over to the audience for a few questions. one is we're talking about special forces a lot and you and i agree that this is primarily a special forces mission. and you also talked about the damage the sequester has done o

to the military and so forth. i think the question of the relationship between special forces and the rest of the military and whether we need such a large military or can rely more heavily on special forces is one of the arguments the administration has sort of been relying on to defend its cuts. we have a terrific paper that actually just came out from aei talking about the history of the relationship between the special forces and conventional forces. let me ask you, you know, why is it not the case or is it not the case that we can have a smaller ground force that has a heavier -- special forces presence by sacrificing some of the more expensive conventional units? >> well, i think if you talk to the commander of the special forces he'd be the first one to tell you the special forces provided a unique function, but they're working on the shoulders of a lot of people

behind them. and i think if you don't have the conventional force to back them up, then they wouldn't -- they couldn't do the full job. they do great at what they do, but you need the air power. you need the navy to get people where they need to be. you need the army when you need a bigger, more forceful body. special forces come from all of those branches. and i think the idea that we have joined forces that work very well together is one of the things that makes us so strong. in visiting one of these countries i find that their air force and their army don't work too well together. and that -- you know, during a football game it's okay to go at each other, but in war you

better be working together. and we do such a fantastic job of that and they're all needed. i think one thing that -- the cuts that we've made on our defense are so devastating. if people really knew how much we've cut and what our readiness is and the abilities that we have right now, the ability to do things we could do just a few years ago are gone, the admiral was in a hearing in one of our hearings just a few weeks ago and he made the comment, if sequestration comes back, and i reminded him, sequestration is the law of the land. we took a little hiatus by getting a budget passed this year that hopefully was going to help, but it is the law of the land. when they work on the budget next year, if they don't fix that problem, his comment was it won't just hollow out the

military. it will break the military. and to be talking about breaking our military right now when we're looking at all of these spots around the world, i mean, as bad as isol is and all of this we're talking about right now, when i was visiting with prime minister netanyahu, he said the most -- you know, they just finished oo days of war. and his comment was, the biggest threats facing the world right now are iran, their sprid of terrorism, and then this islamic terrorist threat that's facing us. i said, what about korea? he doesn't have to worry about that. we have to worry about the whole world. i'm as serious as isol is i'm very concerned about korea. i went there again last month and hadn't been there for a while

and visiting with the general, the problems that we see there, seoul extends out almost to the demilitarize -- dmz. millions of people under the threat of 41 batteries aimed right at them. i told mr. netanyahu, i said, you know, you finished 50 days of war and had 2s casualties. -- you had 2,000 casualties. it's phenomenal the job you did to avoid killing innocent people. in korea if things went bad immediately we would have hundreds of thousands of lives. we have to look all the way around the world. we have to have our military stationed for that plus other areas and this is such a

pressing threat, isol, because of their daily adding to their force and daily adding ground to their territory. and that's a huge threat that we had other major problems, too, and like i said before, if not us, who? >> it's sort of hard to point to a part of the world where things are going well at this point, which is sobering. >> disneyland is still doing well. >> that's great to hear. i'm going to go to the audience and take two very quick questions. identify yourself scan a quick question, please. over here. then we'll go over here please. sir? >> george nicholson, special operations command. first i want to thank you and your predecessors for everything

you've done. people don't realize there wouldn't be a cell contoday if it hadn't been for those who supported it. along those same lines i know one of the highest initiatives was to go ahead and replicate what we've done with nato special operations command in europe. he wanted to replicate that and replicate that and there's been a congressional pushback on that. any comments? >> the second question we'll take over here. >> could you just say that again just --. i lost my hearing aid --. >> one of the admiral's highest priorities was to replicate what we have in nato's special operations command in europe which has been extremely successful and doing the same thing. if there's been a pushback just like the pushback on increasing, taking slots out of tampa and putting them up here in washington to the national capital interface, i know there's

been a pushback on congress. can you talk about it? >> i think, as i mentioned, there are problems all around the world. we need friends all around the world. that's why i went to the pacific and visited and met with the leadership in taiwan and korea and japan, went to china. and then we got a briefing. i think wherever we can put together or could put together alliances that would help us, i don't know why the pushback, maybe the concern is that we may get drug into things. but we get drug into things anyway. we might as well have people that are ready, willing to join us in the effort. i'm happy that japan has been able to work on their constitution to come up with more ability to defend themselves. that's been an issue for them obviously since world war 2. but now china keeps pushing closer and closer. and it just gets pretty testy.

if we can have them do more to help their defense, that's less that we have to do. so i think those kind of efforts would be good, i think, in -- we also took a trip to south america and visited those countries down there. i went there when i was fairly new in congress and we couldn't go to colombia because of the drug problems. well, now colombia is a strong ally. we've had special forces in there helping them. we've had the navy cutting off the drug flow. their local people have pulled together the wherewithal, the

ability, and they've pushed the drug people far back into the jungle. they're winning the fight. they love us because we really helped them. so i think if we put more effort into central america, south america, we could do a lot more than we're doing for a lot less money than we're spending in some other places. i think alliances are good. we should try to create them. not just when we need them. we should plan before and develop the bonds, develop the friendships and then when we get into problems like we've got in the middle east now with isol, they're already there with us. >> hi. i'm penny starr with cnn news. you spoke about the threat all around the world, but what about right here in the united states? for example border security and also fighters who have joined isis abroad who hold u.s. passports? thank you.

>> what did she say? >> what about the threat here, border security and isol fighters who have u.s. passports? >> that's a huge threat. we have -- we had two people from minnesota killed in a fire fight over there recently. one had worked for tsa for ten years. if he had decided to stay here and cause problems instead of going over there, what could he have done? and the problem -- the people of the area all understand -- foreign fighters, a real problem. we have probably a hundred americans over there fighting. they go. they learn. they come back. it's a big threat for us, for the europeans, for other western nations. there's a number -- i've heard 15, 18,000 possible people involved that have, i used the wrong number. maybe 10,000 people that have american or european passports that could come back into this country without a visa and

that's a very, very serious problem. that's one of the reasons why we have to eliminate this threat over there, because it could happen here any day. that's the imminent danger in this threat. >> that's one of the things that obviously differentiates this threat from some of the other threat groups around the world that don't have anything like that, concentration of u.s. or european passport holders involved in that conflict so the specificity of this really matters. >> yeah. it all comes back to the whole purpose of this thing is protecting our people. protecting our nation. they pointed out to me over there that the oceans won't protect

you this time because you're just a few-hour plane flight away. you know, these people have become very, very sophisticated. they're using social media. you know, i read something the other day that as bad as we saw the beheading of those two journalists, there are people that actually thought it was a wonderful thing. about 28,000 tweets came in. i've heard they've already had one beheading in imitation of what they did. that's really scary. and they know how to psychologically take advantage of that. probably what happened at fort hood. >> so to respect your time, i'm going to ask you a quick question and ask for any closing thoughts that you have. but i'd be remiss if i didn't put this question to you.

about this time last year we were having a debate over whether congress would support unbelievably small air strikes in syria, and it looked very much like the president was headed toward defeat in his request for congressional support for that. so i think we have to ask the question, if the president went to congress now and asked for support for his operations in iraq and syria, do you think he would get that support? >> probably be, right now, american opinion is really -- has -- right now american opinion has really switched from don't do anything to go after them. i've heard it said once american opinion has switched, i think it's hit congress that, hey , the people want us to do

something, then maybe they would be more supportive. frankly i was happy to hear the president say that he would go after them in syria, that they wouldn't have the ability to, you know, hit and then run. that remains to be seen, what he will do. that's not what he's talking about coming to congress for, though. we were going to pass a continuing resolution today to fund the government for the rest of the year, and he came to -- he called the chairman of the appropriations committee tuesday afternoon as he was getting ready to submit the bill that we were going to vote on today, and asked him if he would put in there authority to go into saudi arabia because they have offered to give us bases or places that we could use for training free syrians to go back into the fight.

so that kind of was a last-minute request, and it's caused us to not vote today. we've pulled that back, in fact, right now we're in a session that i missed talking about that. about what we do. we'll have another classified briefing in an hour to where we talk about more of it. so we're trying to see, what is the mood of the congress? will we be able to do this? i tend to think that given the seriousness of the situation that we would give him that authority to take advantage of saudi arabia's offer, but, you know, sometimes things happen in congress and people get mad about one thing or another so it's hard to predict until we and lly get language

people have a chance to read it and decide if they want to vote for that or not. right now i would tend to think they probably would support that. he has not talked about asking for anything else. he says he has the authority to do everything he needs. there are some that think he doesn't and we should be moving toward a big debate and a vote and then there are others that don't want to do a thing before the election. timeliness of all this is really important but i -- it's a day-to- day thing right now. >> well, we are very grateful to you for having skipt out of the leadership session on this to be here today and talking with us about it, presenting your plan. very grateful to you, also, for offering a plan. this has been something that we've seen a lot of people

carping and criticizing, which is easier to do. it is very remarkable when someone in your position comes out and offers something concrete in its place. i think it's a good plan that you've suggested and something that we can build on. i also want to take the opportunity to thank you for your many years of leadership on this issue and fighting to protect american national security and all you do. please join me in thanking chairman mckeon. [applause] >> thank you. >> coming up on the next "washington journal" michael barone discusses the republican party over the last 100 years. and explains how the tea party will impact 2016. lee hamilton talks about national security since 9-11 and

a look at public policies that impact higher education and the role of the big ten. our guest is sally mason. "washington journal squts live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> hi. we're excited to announce that it is launch week for the 11th annual studentcam documentary contest. $100,000 in cash prizes will be awarded this year to middle and high school contest winners. this year's theme is the broadest ever. it is the three branches and you. we would like you to tell a story that demonstrates how a policy, a law or an action by either the executive, legislative or judicial branches of the federal government has affected you, your life or your community. the competition is open to students in grades 6-12. students may work alone or in groups of up to three. contestants are asked to present a 5-7 minute video documentary

supporting the topic and to include some c-span programming. that $100,000 in cash prizes will go to 150 students and to 53 teachers, and the grand prize winner with the best overall entry will win $5,000. the deadline for entries this year is january 20, 2015 and winners will be announced in march. visit www.studentcam.org for more information on this year's contest, the three branches and you. >> the chair of the armed services committee spoke at the council of foreign relations. mr. levin is retiring after 36 years in the senate. he spoke about foreign policy and support for the president's isis strategy. this is an hour.

>> good morning, everybody. welcome to today's on-the-record meeting for the council on foreign relations. we certainly have a lot to talk about. and just so there is no confusion, since we're about the same size and same age and we both wear our glasses on the edge of our nose, this fellow on my right is the very distinguished senator from michigan carl levin and i'm the pbs ombudsman. senator levin is, of course, the widely respected chairman of the senate armed services committee , has served for 36 years when he retires in january. he literally needs no introduction to this group, and he has some remarks before we get started with the questioning so i'm not going to say much. i am -- i would like to say,

however, that while journalists are supposed to be the ones with the nose for news, that i must congratulate the council and the senator for superb timing for this discussion and a look at american foreign and defense policy. it is of course the 13th anniversary of the terrible events of september 11, 2001. it's a week since the senator returned from a trip to iraq and ukraine. it's just hours since president obama spoke to the nation on the challenges now confronting us. so, senator levin, you have the floor, sir. > thank you. thanks for all of your good work and your introduction. it is great to be back to the council on foreign relations again. i think this is three years in a row perhaps. as i came up on the elevator i was reminded we're also here as

michael mentioned on the anniversary of the horrific vents of september 11, 2001, so this is a very appropriate time to talk about these issues. i just returned from a trip to ukraine, iraq, and jordan. that's the type of trip, by the way, that does not make it into "the washington post" series on congressional junkets to choice travel destinations. current events in these countries are a direct consequence of two of the most dramatic transformations in international environment that i've seen in my 36 years in the senate. first, the end of the cold war and, second, the rise of a virulent strain of islamic extremism.

russia's actions in ukraine are a direct challenge to the post cold war hopes for europe. in effect, putin has asserted a new sphere of influence or reasserted an old one in which he believes he can act with impunity to impose russia's will, much as the soviet union did in eastern europe during the cold war. in many ways, putin's actions in ukraine have been a wakeup call, to which the western democracys are beginning to respond in a way in which we did not do in the case of the russian occupation of territory georgia and mull dovea -- muldova. in light of ukraine's proximity to russia, russia's overwhelming military advantages in the area, and putin's apparent willingness to violate the norms of international conduct, there's little that ukraine would be able to do to stop a direct,

large scale russian military action should russia choose to invade openly. nato will not go to war with russia over ukraine. nor should we lead the ukrainians to believe that we will. as we tragically did with the hungarians in 1956. what should the united states and our allies do in ukraine? first, we should continue to find ways to make it clear to the russians that they cannot reject the post cold war order in europe while continuing to participate in the european economy at the same time. that's why sanctions are important and must stay in lace even if a cease-fire is conducted if russia con forms its actions to the norms of international behavior. second, we should do more to help the ukrainians to fend for themselves. the ukrainians emphasized to me on my visit that they are

willing to fight for themselves and as long as they understand we will not be sending our own men and women to fight for them i believe we should provide them with the military equipment that they need. that means both lethal and nonlethal equipment including m-wraps and other equipment that would be shredded or abandoned as we leave afghanistan. we should do this because assisting people who are willing to fight to defend their own country and their own freedom reflects our values, providing such equipment would enable the ukrainians to raise the price the russians have to pay for their aggression and, hopefully, make putin think twice about continuing or furthering aggression. russia's violation of international law in ukraine has already drawn nato closer together. it will provide a new challenge and strong, common interest. putin could, as he boasted,

occupy eastern ukraine. but in the long run, he would be acting against russia's own interests, because he cannot prevail against a united europe. my iraq visit focused on isis, the imminent threat it poses to iraq, the region, and the international community. our military leaders and intelligence experts uniformly told us that air strikes alone will not be sufficient to defeat isis. isis's rapid spread has been possible in large part because it exploited sunni discontent with the malaki government which insisted on ruling iraq on a narrow, sectarian basis. if the new prime minister shows that iraq will now be governed inclusively, isis will find fewer sunni leaders willing either to aid and abet their terror or to look the other way. president obama has been

cautious about resorting to military force in iraq and elsewhere. in the middle east, the use of military force by western nations without arab support can be counterproductive, providing fuel for the hateful propaganda used by extremists who attack a western presence as, quote, occupation. for instance, neither isis nor its predecessor, al qaeda in iraq, existed before the u.s. invasion in 2003. instead, al qaeda and iraq was created in response to the american presence in that country and fed off the resulting conflict. so what should the united states do about isis? the president laid out a forceful strategy last night. it deserves bipartisan support. first, just as isis poses a threat to the international

community security, the response needs to be international. president obama has begun building an international coalition to respond to isis. the u.n. resolution endorsing the use of force against isis while not necessary would help rally international support. the participation of key arab states in the region would be critical to the effectiveness of any international coalition. if western countries act in iraq and syria without visible participation and leadership, by arab nations, it will play into the propaganda pitch of extreme elements within the sunni community that they, isis, is the only force willing to stand up against foreign domination. active participation by arab states is key, because the fight against isis is a struggle for the hearts and minds of sunni muslims as well

as a military struggle. the vast majority of muslims oppose the brutality of isis, whose horrific actions may be a turning point in persuading main stream islam of the need to expunge this poisonous offshoot. if main stream muslims fail to join and the conflict could be successfully portrayed as one of the west against islam, the poison is likely to reappear in new and different forms, as it has in the past. second, within the context of a broad, international alliance, i believe congress will support air strikes against isis, taking on the group's leadership and infrastructure in both iraq and syria. the president's hand will be strengthened by congressional support, and he was wise to welcome it last night.

but he already has the authority he needs under both domestic and international law to conduct such a campaign. under domestic law the president has authority to act under article 2 of the constitution when necessary to defend the united states. the beheading of two american journalists coupled with isis' threats against the united states and its training of americans provides sufficient basis for such action. under international law the president has the authority to act in iraq in accordance with the request of the government of iraq. he has authority to act in syria because the syrian government has proven unwilling or unable to address the isis threat from its ungoverned territories. third, we should train, equip, and assist those iraqis and syrians who are willing to fight isis.

their boots are on the ground already, and their own country's future is at stake. this effort should start with the kurds while limited in their military capabilities, the kurd ishfighters have proven willing to fight in their own defense and take the fight to isis in key strategic areas near kurdistan. moreover, the kurds have provided some defense for nearby areas occupied by religious minorities and have taken in refugees fleeing from isis assaults, providing a haven of religious tolerance that is too often absent in that part of the world. we should do all that we can to ensure that the group has the equipment they need and to help train them in the tactics that will succeed against isis. training and equipping them will not be sufficient to counter the isis threat outside the areas under kurd

ishcontrol. we should provide training and assistance to the iraq armed forces as the new iraqi government hopefully demonstrates it is prepared to govern in an inclusive manner. if anything, should bring the iraqis together in a common cause, the threat posed by the barbaric tactics of isis should do it. as baghdad addresses the grievances of iraq's sunni communities, which should help give rise to the isis threat, western nations should increase the level of military assistance provided. finally, we and our allies should take additional steps to vetted ain and assist moderate opposition in syria as the president is requesting and has requested. even if isis is pushed out of iraq, the organization will survive unless it is also defeated in syria.

in syria, as in iraq, isis can be set back by air power. but cannot be defeated without an opposing force to take the fight to it on the ground. that force needs to be a well vetted, moderate, syrian opposition force that is trained and equipped and supported by the united states and its allies, again, including partners ahmong the arab states. in iraq and syria and ukraine, the fight is for their people to win. we can and should provide robust assistance to those who are prepared to fight for themselves against terror and aggression. it is the right thing to do. it reflects our values, and it is in our national interest. u.s. military force is not always the answer. but it can be and often is an essential part of the answer to

terror and aggression. equally important is an effective, political and economic strategy, which in the case of isis must include both a broad international coalition with active participation by arab nations and the establishment of a moderate, inclusive alternative in both raq and syria. michael? >> thank you. thanks very much. we'll get started by asking you what roles do you see actually being maid by saudi arabia, turkey, jordan, arab allies, if there is to be a coalition and if arab/muss lick participation is crucial to some ultimate success is a public role possible for them and if so what might that be for those

countries? >> the public role is not only possible, it's essential. if we're going to turn the momentum against the extremists and the terrorists and the fanatics and the violence users inside of that strand of islam, 's got to be led by the main stream islamists. there is no alternative. i believe it is possible now for two reasons. one is because of isis. and who they threaten. and it is very clear that they threaten those same countries. the existence of the government in those countries. and the second reason is that the president is doing and fund for us to openly training and equipment under title 10. he's asked for $500 million for

training and equipping and he's asked for specific support and authority to train and equip. he already has the authority, by the way. the reason for asking for that authority under title 10 which means defense department personnel and not other personnel doing it covertly, is to show the arab world that we are openly doing something which we have only done covertly, which i believe they will -- which will help them to do the same thing. a number of those countries have provided support in the against or instance, asa, but they have not done it openly. but for this effort against isis to work militarily in the short run, but in terms of politically, to turn this strand of iran, of islam into a -- into a minority that has no

political power, there's got to be open support of this effort and it's got to be part of an open coalition, which will show the muslim world and the sunni world, which is part of it, that this is an effort which is -- which reflects the main stream values of islam, and it this them to purge poison that the strand has produced. >> why haven't muslim leaders in this country especially and elsewhere spoken out more publicly against isis? >> i think they have spoken out publicly. i don't know that it's been covered adequately. but i think in other countries they have not. a number of imams in other countries have, as a matter of isis or ed and abetted

the extremists, put it that way. all the other reasons they could either flow from ideological agreement or monetary support. there's all kinds of motivation that can be there. but it needs to be done more because, again, this poison has and o be purged by islam it's totally antiislam. i will always -- i won't go into that anecdote. it takes too long. but the conversation i had with zat reinforced my belief that main stream islam is totally inconsistent with what the fanatics are doing. >> just to get back to those three countries for a minute, do you believe that their role in the coalition that's saudi arabia, turkey, jordan, for example, will be visible to the american public and visible to everybody in terms of actual contribution to a coalition? >> the hope is that it will be. that's what the effort is of

secretary kerry and the president right now is that it be open. it needs to be for it to be successful, for this effort to be successful long term. and it's obvious that isis is a threat to them. i think now that they can do it openly without fear of retaliation in their own countries by a minority that would take to the streets. >> i notice the president actually didn't call theous ter of assad again but how do you weaken an attack of isis without strengthening assad? >> because you go after both of ways. blems in various inside of syria but, mainly, training and equipping the forces that oppose those two alternatives which are now in iraq holding open a third alternative. the two alternatives, i'm

sorry, in syria. i misspoke. the two alternatives now in yria are either assad or isis. the moderates have been weakened. so you've got two alternatives. the goal of the president is to have a third alternative that is offered in iraq. and to make it complicated to have both of these efforts going on in the same country combu for the most part they will be focused in different parts of the country. >> most of the reporting has suggested that people are cautious about this whole approach and find it hard to imagine it working or at least the recommendations that there had to be some kind of larger american military on the ground presence. not a lot of troops but certainly a larger or some

force of special forces or something like that in order to give this a greater chance of success, this overall strategy. is that something you would agree with? >> not combat forces on the ground, no. >> all right. >> i think, number one, it is not necessary. number two, it works against us politically. it doesn't lay the responsibility where it must fall, which is on the people in iraq and syria to achieve these goals by themselves, a unified iraq, less sectarian than under alaki, and a syria which purges itself, hopefully, of both assad and of isis. >> there's such -- i mean, the facts on the ground about the iraqi army after all these years are not encouraging. and is there any reason to believe that that army is going

to perform better? >> the hope is that a new government, which is not sectarian, the way malaki was, will have the support of an army unlike the previous army, which was not willing to support a sectarian government in baghdad. >> senator, do you believe that there is -- that the president into ally being drawn another conflict, or is intentionally being drawn into this conflict by isis and related groups? it's something that sort of they want for their strategy? >> they might want it, but they won't want it after what they're going to face. i mean, i -- it's kind of hard to psycho analyze people whose mentality is on a different

planet from my perspective. so they may want it. they may want death. a lot of people would say that these folks want death. they want to be killed. they want to get to heaven faster. if that's their wish, we should try to help them achieve it. >> speaking of psycho analysis, could you give us your overall nse of the president's ability? i don't mean his personal ability. but his ability to pull all this together, to pull together a congress, a coalition, the public? he's taken a terrible beating among the chattering classes and the pontificaters in the last several months. his poll ratings have dropped. they may have gone up somewhat after these horrible beheadings and what not that have

galvanized people, but he would appear to be at a stage where his foreign policy presence has been weakened and, yet, he and yet he's got this huge challenge. how among congress and your sense, how well is he ime of his presidency? >> he's able to do it. i predict he'll succeed in doing this for a number of reasons. number one, the american people want to respond to this threat. it's clear from the nature of the threat. it's clear from those -- the beheading events that the american people want a strong response. they'll supports the strong response which we saw yesterday from the president. secondly, the world community is going to galvanize here. that's essential. this president really has had a

number of kind of strains in his thinking, which i think the american people support. number one is, force is a last resort. secondly, they want -- i think they agree with this president in saying that we cannot achieve for others what they are unwilling to achieve for themselves. the people of iraq and syria have got to basically make the decision and fight for their own countries and their own freedoms. we can help that is another strand in the president house thinking. need an international coalition, unlike iraq, where it is a rough -- a western country going in without any arab support into a muslim country, and what this president has always focused on is a

broad-based coalition, not just a western coalition, which already i think is clear that there will be many row -- many western countries that will participate in what the president has outlined. is. and that is something which i believe the american people also support. >> do you see a chance of this spreading into saudi arabia, for example? conflict? >> not in a big way in terms of violent acts. there have already been violent acts in many countries. i can't say there won't be violent acts in many countries. but in terms of large-scale civil war-type environment, i don't see it. >> do you see this very intense focus on isis now, especially reinforced by the president's speech, as somehow providing putin with an opportunity to do some things in ukraine that

would perhaps have gotten more attention? >> i think he's kind of moving in the other direction from this morning's reports in terms of removing some presence there. i don't think so. i think ukraine is very, very much in the minds of this administration, and should be, and i hope that we find a way to not only add additional pressure with sanctions until putin lives up to international norms, but also provide additional military equipment to the ukrainians. their president's going to be here next week. i have not met him, but what i read about him he's an impressive person in terms of him being a patriot, ukrainian patriot, but also someone who's got some kind of business sense which gives him a certain kind

of cachet, i think. but also he's been, i think, strong, relative to his comments about putin. >> just two quick questions before we turn to the audience. one, this -- at a time like this where there's so much emphasis son what the world is really like today and a lot of conflict, on the other hand the size of the army and the marine corps are continuing to decline. does that bother you as a leader of the armed services committee? >> i think we have to downsize somewhat. we are doing it in a cautious way. i am troubled by the hit the readiness has taken through some of the budget cuts. and there's been an effort with some success to restore the readiness.

but we are going to have a somewhat smaller military, but it is always ready. that's the key. that's the decision. where we have also shorted ourselves is on some modernization. so i believe that the whole sequestration decision, looking back at it, was wrong, his purpose was not to be implemented. its purpose making these across-the-board cuts, the purpose was never to be implemented. it was to force us to do something rational. it did not succeed in that regard. i think we ought to find a way to repeal sequestration. if you had a half-hour i would tell you how i will do it. i won't be around here to implement it anyway. >> you're ok with the troop levels? >> with the gradual reduction, i am. >> also i know you have been to afghanistan many, many, many times. it's kind of gotten off the map a little bit. but there is this sense, again

critics talk about the -- how do we withdrawal from afghanistan and iraq has perhaps contributed to the ascension of isis, and just give us a quick look at the situation in afghanistan, if you wouldn't mind. >> in afghanistan, the glass is at least half full. i believe getting fuller. that's not the perception of the american people. i think the media coverage of afghanistan has been so overwhelmingly negative, focusing on the bad events, the sad tragic events, the violent events, which are there, but not focusing at all on the accomplishments which are really quite extraordinary in terms of the number of kids that are going to school, including girls. 40% of the students now are girls. 40% of the teachers are women. the opening of universities.

the -- it's a totally different place in terms of business, people on the streets than it was five or six years ago, much less 10 years ago. i have been there a dozen times. it is visible what the difference is in afghanistan. the afghan people are glad we came. the afghan people, according to their polls, believe we have had some real success in afghanistan. we, being, by the way, a coalition. how is it the american people overwhelmingly think it's a failure? how does that happen? where do the american people get their information from? they get it from our media. if the media doesn't cover the positive side of the story, the american people understandably are going to say it looks like we failed in afghanistan. i think bob gates maybe put it as well as could be put, he said, this is the first war that he's ever seen that --

afghanistan is the first war he's ever seen that the closer you get to it, the better it looks. >> well, ok. we'll now get close to our audience. please wait for the microphone. speak directly into it. state your name, affiliation, stand up, of course. keep your comments, to questions and brief ones, please. >> thanks. with the atlantic council, i also write for monitor.com. i want to go back to the assad question. the syrian moderate opposition so-called has not gotten its act together in the last three years. it has been cyclist at best both politically and militarily. it seems a huge leap of faith now to think that we really can create an alternative in that country.

if one assumes eventually you do have to get rid of assad to get rid of isis, don't we have to work with the iranians in order to engineer that? thanks >> we are not going to work with the iranians to do that. their motivations are different from our motivations. they support us. we don't. is it a conflict situation? yes. is it achievable? i believe it is achievable. is it a huge challenge? of course it is. but there are going to be forces, trained and equipped, to go after isis. there are going to be continuing trading and equipping, hopefully much expanded, of courses, that want to keep the heat on assad. it's a large country. the most -- most of the territory which is effectively governed by isis is in a different part of iraq than the

part that is essentially governed by assad. and there's also parts that are governed by the moderate. it's complex. it has to be done and i don't know of any better alternative. i don't know of one than the president laid out. if we are sending troops down there, u.s. troops and western troops in there, if any of the people who are critical of this want to do that, there may be some, then they should say so. i heard some of the republican criticism. even before this speech, by the way, this isn't your question, but it gives me an opportunity to pick a bone with some of the partisanship here. i have never seen, never seen such virulent partisanship in 36 years particularly in the area of international policy. i was a critic of president bush's going to war in iraq. i voted against it. i thought it was a mistake. and then the vote was there. and i joined in supporting our

troops. it was never continual. it was never just rat-a-tat-tat against bush. if you disagree with him, you're civil. you say why. and move on. i mean on the eve of the president's speech, mitch mcconnell on the floor, i was there when he did it yesterday, attacks the president on every single -- the president's to blame for everything. foreign policy. this on the eve of a president's speech. i see republicans in a highly partisan way attack the president when he's abroad. we would never do that when a president's abroad. the republican partisanship against this president has reached a level i have never seen in 36 years. that's not a response to your

question, but thanks for bearing with me. >> thank you. congressional quarterly. senator, have you given any thought to what plan b ought to be if the ground forces that we are counting on to defeat isis, both in iraq and syria, don't -- if isis beats them? >> i think first of all you got to fully flesh out the coalition. and see how that works and as you do that, you obviously want a plan b. i think that plan a is being fleshed out militarily and i -- the focus has got to be right now on fleshing out plan a.

i don't think there's a plan b that has come to anyone's mind because if there were a better plan than this one, i think people would have proposed it. i haven't heard too many alternatives to this plan. i heard a lot of criticism. but i haven't heard of many alternatives. so the answer is, i think that we should and hopefully will both inside the pentagon, inside the state department, inside the white house be working on alternatives as this is under way. but i don't think there's a fully fleshed plan a yet in terms of the coalition being put together. so it's kind of hard. personally i have not -- do i think it's being thought of? i hope so. plan b. >> mr. chairman, thank you for your comments. particularly in light of the end of your comments to the previous questioner here, i heard you

say, and i appreciate and embrace the need for congressional support, but in light of that, current attitude from many in the congress, how do you see that happening? and when do you see that happening? incidentally, it was reassuring to hear from some responsible republicans and democrats, some bipartisan support for that in the press this morning. >> i think it will get -- the president's proposal will get bipartisan support. i think some of the strident voices are hopefully now against the president are going to now cool it for a while. while we try to see if we can't find a way to support the president. whether it's through a new aumf, a new authority for the use of military force, or whether it's through a resolution of support. whether it's through supporting the funding that he's asked for the training and equipping under title 10, which sounds

technical, that gets to the question of the openness of the support which is so critical to the issue of gaining arab open support, which in turn is so critical for long-term success. i believe there will be bipartisan support for -- i don't know the form. because there's many ways you can express support here. the aumf approach has got some complexities to it as we saw in the last aumf which is still in effect. 11 years later. i hope now in terms of timing i hope we can come up with a -- some mechanism of support. whether it's a combination of supporting the title 10 request for training and quip -- equip money, which i hope we are going to do before we leave. whether it's in addition to that, some kind of a resolution of support. which is perhaps less of a legal document, which is what an

authorization for the use of military force is, because that is in law. and it could be more, possibly, some kind of a sense of the congress resolution of support. i hope we can do something in that area before we leave as well. as the title 10 financial support for the $500 million. i think both of those are possible. the aumf, take a longer time to figure that out because, again, that is a legal binding document which has some implications in terms of how long a period. what are the limits -- you have to work out some language which you as a fantastic lawyer know takes some time. >> jim slattery. thank you very much for 36

incredible years in the united states senate. i want to come back to the question that barbara raised. are we certain, absolutely certain that iran is not willing to play a constructive role in dealing with assad and replacing him somehow? and if there is an opportunity for us to have a conversation with iran about replacing assad, as we deal with isis, which they clearly see as an immense threat to them -- i am puzzled by why today we are just paralyzed, it seems like, in dealing with opportunities where the enemy of our enemy may be our friend, at least for a period of time, and why we are unwilling to seize

these moments. i have been involved for 10 years in an abrahamic outreach to iran. so it's totally passion for me and a pro bono project. but i strongly believe, senator, if we do not deal with rahani and others around him, god help us in dealing with iran over the next five to 10 years. iies want us to be as creative as we possibly can be in dealing with this situation. thank you again for your leadership. >> your question is, are we paralyzed? >> and also are we certain that iran is not open to helping us deal with a post-assad syria? >> i can't say that i'm certain of anything in the middle east, first of all. with those nations -- with iran, iraqi leadership. there are some things i am certain about in the middle east. that's not your question.

most of the things you ask about i can't say i am certain about. does that mean -- i don't see how you explore dealing with iran on this area at the same time where i believe wise in trying to explore with iran a way of making sure that they don't get to a nuclear weapon. i think they would -- if you tried both at the same time, i think they would somehow or other get intertwined and the nuclear piece is so important that we succeed that just hanging on to that possibility is difficult enough, frankly, without talking about adding another complex issue to it. i just don't think it's practical. i don't think it's wise to see if that is a possibility what you described at the same time where negotiating hopefully or

discussing a way to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon. because if that doesn't succeed, the ramifications are huge. and shouldn't do anything which could upset it or raise their expectations that something that we are talking to about in syria might mean that maybe we wouldn't be as tough on them in negotiations on the nuclear side. >> this lady behind you. i'll get you next. >> thank you very much. francis cook. senator, thank you for your service. one of my fondest memories in oman, my last assignment, was your visit with senator warner. we had a democrat and republican traveling with republican secretary of state who was working for a democratic president. >> those were the good old days. >> that seems almost like -- you got a room here foreign affairs professionals, can you give us

any hope or some idea what can be done? we are making people overseas very nervous. if we have trouble putting together this coalition, they think we are a hapless giant right now because of what's going on in washington. dick cheney was on the hill. >> don't send me there. >> i'm saying that obama supports the muslim brotherhood, when that gets in the egyptian chamber, it's a real problem for us. what can by do? >> what we can do is continue to look for ways to be bipartisan. i come from a state that produced arthur vandenberg who was a giant. he was heroic. he helped truman succeed with nato and all the other things which they were able to do after world war ii. he had to change his position, by the way, to do it. he had been an isolationist before world war ii. i know how essential it is, and it's really -- at the moment if we are going to get arab and

muslim countries to openly get involved in this coalition, we have got to be bipartisan here. if they see us squabbling and not agreeing on things we agree on, i mean we -- ok. you can start arguing about whether or not we should have made a greater effort to leave troops in iraq after an iraqi government said they won't sign an agreement with us that our troops would be protected. there's so much history you could argue about. i'm more than willing to argue that and a bunch of other issues. rye now the issue is whether or not the body politic in this country is going to pull together to go after a real threat. to us and to the world. that's the question. 95% of us think we ought to go after them. when i say us in the congress, i think -- we go after isil, isis, the answer i think 95% of us

would say yes. given that, pretty strong feeling on this and strong feeling in the public, 70% of the public now thinks we ought to do it too. for heaven's sake, in this circumstance, can't we then pull together, drop some of that partisan stuff that we heard from mcconnell on the floor yesterday on the eve of the president's speech? i just don't understand why he thought that would somehow or other either help this country or politically help his cause. i don't get it. but to answer your question, i believe that isis ought to be cement, glue, that brings together the muslim world, 99% of whom have got to hate isis. just the way isis can be a mechanism to unify the muslim world. and expel that poison, that element of poison that is there and needs to be expelled. i think isis can have that

effect, positive effect in the muslim world. a unified -- for heaven's sake, the same point applies to us. >> this gentleman here first. >> thank you. jack goldstone, woodrow wilson senator. senator, you have far more experience in this region than i do. so i defer to your insight. i come back to this question about syria and iran. isis is already using american weapons that were captured from moderates we tried to equip. >> that's not necessarily true. the weapons that they captured may not have been, according to that story, even american weapons. keep going. >> if we are going to make the moderates in syria strong and effective force, it's going to require some input of american advisors, trainers, supervisors,

iran already has boots on the ground in syria supporting assad. the sunni coalition that is vital to the success of this effort may be perfect received by iran as a threat, a sunni coalition aiming to displace a government they are supporting. how can we not be talking to iran if we are building a sunni coalition in the region? if we are putting american efforts into opposing a regime that they support? if they don't feel part of this effort, it may destroy all the efforts we have made to make progress in the nuclear and other areas. >> if iran doesn't feel part of the effort? they are already there. so they are already making an effort without being part of a coalition. secondly, the government of iraq -- if they want to talk, which they obviously do, they can do

it. that's got to be the filter. it can't be direct conversations with iran for practical reasons. i believe. i'm someone who very strongly believes we ought to be negotiating with iran on the nuclear side. against some very strong opposition to even talking to iran on the nuclear side. that to me is the number one goal right now is to avoid that catastrophe of iran getting a nuclear weapon. and i think this could muddy that water and confuse and complicate those negotiations if in another area we are relying on iran, because i think it could help, it could raise their expectations somehow or other, it could affect what they calculate we might be willing to do on a nuclear side. i don't want them to change their calculus. i want them to know how serious we are.

and the people negotiating with them are that they not get a nuclear weapon and think that somehow or other if they are in a coalition over in a different area that that could in any way change our position or weaken our resolve on the nuclear side. >> i'm mitzi of the naval postgraduate school. this has been a fabulous discussion. my question is for you. how do we get the media to explain the story the senator has been telling us? and i understand you-all look for wanting to be the first whether you like the report on conflict, but i think you have to start demanding from congress that they talk together. i remember when conde rice was sort of talking about all this, how can we sell democracy if we can't make it function here? >> well, the media's -- >> do you have a mike on? >> yes, i do. >> it's a strange beast.

i think the senator comes to his views on coverage of afghanistan from where he sits. i would argue generally that i haven't really studied the press on coverage and afghanistan recently. i would argue that if you go back and look at major news organizations, they have done a reasonable job. the problem i think with press coverage often is when the action stops or when american troops are gone, the press coverage goes with it. i think that happened in iraq and it happened in afghanistan as well. there was intense coverage and many reporters there. when the withdrawals began and u.s. casualties went way down, the coverage actually went way down. one of the weaknesses of the

press is perhaps that when americans are not directly involved, when they're being killed or wounded, there is less of a focus on the aftermath. that is in part responsible because there are not enough foreign correspondents. i think that you find in almost any conflict that there is a very significant drop-off in daily press coverage. they have yet to report. they are not teachers. they are there to report what is going on. the interest level drops with editors and the public together when the u.s. involvement drops. >> senator, i want to add my

thanks to your service and your leadership which have been so important. it sounds like you and the president agreed that he has the authority to move as he is described. it sounds like maybe for different reasons. i think he has said he has authority under the 2001 aumf. like an arcane legal question, one of the concerns we have had, we have shared concerns about that. building that support requires what the mission really is. can you talk a little bit about what the risks might be for open-ended authorization for the use of military force?

either how it has been used under the 2001 aumf or article two of the constitution. >> it is used for the field in the area of interest at the time. we get into these legal arguments that the groups we go after our pursuant to that authority and with that authority, somehow or other, it connected adequately to the group we were going after. it is a legal document and it has to be done with some real care.

it is not done in the conflicts we have seen. we didn't have aumf in lybia. we have never had an aumf using airpower. i believe the president should get bipartisan support. i think the policy is right. i believe that the policy that he has laid out his right. for this moment to disagree on technical wordings a concurrent or joint resolution doing with those limits, no ground troops relying on a coalition.

these are themes of this president which i happen to share. it gets to the point of if we are going to try to overcome the complexities of an aumf which might be a complex partisan debate. it leads to that because it is such a legal document that is binding law instead of supporting the title x funding and having a sense of the congress resolution supporting what 90% of us support. just put in their the parts that we agree. it will stick with a 90%. some might think we go too far

and 90% of us think that it is pretty close to being on target. i think people feel that. we have to carry the brunt of the fight. it has to be us assisting them. i think those principles to have general support in the congress and the american people ought to focus on where we can agree right now. instead of trying to figure out exactly what the parameters are which goes on forever unless there is a limit.

we can spend a week debating how long the next aumf will be in effect. that is a really good debate. that is an honest kind of debate we should have. i just think that is the wrong message for the world right now. focus on where we can agree, the funding 500 million and some kind of sense of the resolution being supportive of a policy which is strong.

>> unfortunately, we don't have any more time for debate. it has been a very good exchange. thank you, everybody. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> the pentagon holds a farewell parade for the chairs of the

armed services committee in the senate and house today. michigan senator carl levin and california congressman buck mckeon will retire at the end of this congress. we will have that live from fort myer in arlington, virginia 9:00 am eastern on c-span2. today, the center for american progress hosts a discussion on u.s. strategy for combating isis and iraq and syria. you can watch the events live at noon eastern on c-span2. >> of this week and on the c-span networks, american history tv is live from baltimore's fort mchenry for the 200th anniversary of the star-spangled banner sunday morning at 8:30 on c-span3, and later on since :00 p.m. eastern, later athens :00 p.m., we will learn why francis got key was there to witness the fight.

saturday night at 8:00 on c-span, the presidential leadership scholars program with former presidents george w. bush and bill clinton, and sunday afternoon at 3:30, live coverage of the harkin steak fry. sunday at 8:00, q&a with rick perlstein. ords," booktv's "after w author ken silverstein on the secret world of oil. later, senator kirsten to gillibrand on her call for women to rise up and make a difference in the world. find our television schedule on c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us at 202-626-3400 or e-mail us at comments@c-span.org. or send us a tweet @cspan, #comments. join the conversation -- like us on facebook, follow us on twitter.

>> the hispanic national bar association hears from attorney general eric holder today at their annual conference in washington, d.c. you can hear his remarks live at 12:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> coming up next, live, "washington journal." at 10:00 am eastern, a discussion about the september 18 scottish independent vote. at 11:30, former president clinton takes part in a white house their money marking the 20 --iversary of americorps white house ceremony marking the 20th anniversary of americorps. coming up in 45 minutes on "washington journal," michael barone of the "washington examiner" discusses the development of the republican party and how the split between the tea party and mainstream republicans will impact 2016. former eastern, congressman 9/11 commission cochair lee hamilton talks about national security since 9/11 and the president's strategy for dealing with isis.

at 9:15 eastern, public policies that affect higher education and the role of the big ten conference. our guest is sally mason, president of the university of iowa. ♪ host: and congress is coming back next week to debate. obama's proposed isis strategy. secretary kerry is in the middle east drumming up support among middle east leaders. the president has proposed 435 additional troops to iraq, airstrikes in syria, and supportl and material for opposition groups in a syria as well. what do you think of the presidents a strategy? we want to get your viewpoints. 02