virginia on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. as i do ing c-span every day. i would like to congratulate you uys for the great job that you did. my father name was theodore roosevelt. now.urse, he's passed even before i started to school, he tells me about the me evelts, he talked to about theodore and of franklin and how progressive they were. i would he relateivity like for you to expound on if on would shed some light this. president obama is a progressive. always trying to bring the class and poor class up. why is it that during this age receiving the t our country thrives on the middle class people. you're right. we've been locked in several lock and kind of grid

political partisanship. you're seeing the language even understand rich to that they've done really well, by the way, since 2009 to now. it's they understood that declining all americans subscribe to the notion of playing field.el you see that rhetoric. i hope our film adds just a mall voice to the notion of what's the nature of leadership and how do we get things done in complicated country that even back then was as partisan as roosevelts were despited by

people. they were still able to get done. one thing that franklin roosevelt and obama couldn't get done, the affordable care act. appear here ere to say, what? you took 100 years to get health care? mind?ou out of your look at the other countries. a political football now. but in the scheme of the the united states, you could look at the affordable care a kt as a kind of a last and of he new deal theodore roosevelt's administratio administration. host: would teddy recognize the democratic party today? or fdr the republican party? guest: i think theodore would surprised by the republican party today. because he battled the very views that are now prevalent, really all his life. and he was ublican

terribly popular, but he was not popular with this sort of right party.f his and eventually he broke with them. roosevelt built a team. stuff that's id been gone for many years. they're both different. surprised.ey'd be guest: franklin would recognize the democratic party a little bit more. he'd feel more at home in sort of all of its constituent parts diversity of minority progressive.

founded to get rid of the slaves the hypocrisy, the toleration of slavery when equal.n are created they did about doing that with the second candidate. and the other was to label the playing field. that the interests had beg unto take over. the republican party became a place for that. the progressive wing saw that a little lost its soul bit by returning as the democrats were also under the sway of the so-called interests, the bosses. both the democrats and franklin father and the

republicans party. the republican party lost its way again and help bring back the main street the wall street guy. the family farmer, not the agribusiness. wrings back the principles of the republican party as it founded. the history of the republican arty has been an alternating current, a progressive mode and more conservative mode. the progressive and more mode.rvative so i think both men would find it.mselves -- i get read it in two seconds and set getting promising and things done. they were about rolling up their sleeves. them all thee with time. we find great flaws but they say things done. get >> the book in the documentary, "the rose sveltses," the appearing all this week on pbs. thank you both for joining us this morning. guest: thank you. guest: thank you very much.

host: eli lake, the senior national security correspondent beast, talking about the legal hurdles that the obama administration has to avigate when it comes to the efforts in iraq and syria. later in the weekly "your money" look at the portions of the defense department bucket that deals with counterterrorism operations. we'll be right back.

>> eli lake, a correspondent for the daily beast. author of a new piste last week, obama's new war on isis illegal. that's the headline of that piece. let's start by the legal for the efforts in iraq and syria? guest: sure, when president authorized bombing in iraq 2011, e first time since the first article said congress declares war. the second is the president is commander in chief. the presidents before them used article ii authority saying he's the commander in chief and has the responsibility to keep citizens and interests

secure. he used that as presidents before him have used those powers. but the problem is 1973, there's powers g called the war act, which was a reaction to using these kinds of inherent authorities to wage very long, drawn out wars. the classic example that is there points out was never a declaration of war against vietnam. so the vietnam war was seen as a police action although it was probably our longest and worst ar from the perspective of casualtie casualties. civil war, the worst war in terms of casualties. war powers sed the act, every 30 to 60 days the president needed to inform these kinds of prolonged activities and tried to narrow what could count as that. certainly a rescue operation in syria would count as something that would be covered powers clause and

the clause in the constitution. as the bombing campaign in iraq uickly did, remember, it then began to protect and prevent for interests the genocide against the other minorities. protecting me crucial iraqi infrastructure the mosul dam and preventing isil from actions that could cripple -- cripple iraq. i as the war expanded, believe the white house was looking for another rationale for that. then it gets to something called the 2001 authorization for the use of military force. the post for the three days after 9/11 congress says we re declaring war on those who are responsible for 9/11. hat became al qaeda and was used by both bush and obama as he legal justification for air

strikes, indefinite detention of individuals, not just in al qaeda, but also associated al qaeda as it began to be argued in the courts. you say the piece, it's shady legal ground when isis that opposed to uest: isis is a franchise of al qaeda, by in today's world lmost at war with the al qaeda of syria. the leader of isis right now has declared himself the califf of the pious muslims. one after rect zawahiri in his eyes. they correspond publicly in various ways. they both sort of acknowledge isis is no longer al qaeda. with

i called up legal scholars who since written on their own in more detail. you couldn't say isis was an force of al qaeda. they're formally kind of kicked them out. the administration's argument is, well, it started as al iraq., josh earnest there's a clip last walks like a terrori terrorist -- if it walks like a quacks like a duck, it's a duck. it's going to not pass the legal muster. force a wholly separate than al qaeda. host: is it up to the terrorist groups to find who they're or what groups they're coming from, an argument that the white house has been hill?g on capitol guest: it's a good argument. first of all, i mean this is of whether entirely or not the united states should be at war with al qaeda, i'm isis., with

but the problem is that even before they used this isis, there n for were a number of people that originalerned that the purpose of the war resolution -- people responsible was /11 expanded where it with air strikes in somalia, pakistan, yemen, all over the muslim world. issue i've es this written about before of is this war ipe for kind of a without end? a permanent war? you expand the definition of who's response shl for 9/11. guantanamo or had been killed. if you continued to fight it ut, then, you know, this -- this original resolution becomes so elastic that it allows for a permanent war that would last beyond obama's presidency and maybe being a new normal. that's a concern from not just the legal perspective, but a political perspective.

so i think the alternative could resolution new narrowing against isis. t encompassed everything that obama said we have to accomplish. there were the political votes there. ertainly i think most republicans would have roted -- i think you would have gotten the number of democrats as well on the public statements that they said. i don't know -- why they haven't gone to congress. they can say the last time went to congress, similar syria. air strikes in violated when assad he redline on "split cat weapons. >> and should congress hold a vote. f they did, should it happen before or after thee reelection? is there a chance something like that could happen before the election at this point? guest: we haven't seen house boehner hold that vote.

we haven't seen harry reid say that vote yet. you have baghdad di in your sights in syria, would you not the shot if you knew you could get him because you didn't have a formal yet?orization that's why they're asserting they do have that authority. host: the daily beast. you have questions or comments as we go through this segment of the washington journal. 202-55-3880. 202-585-3881. 202-585-3882. and outside of the u.s., 202-585-3883. you use the term -- you used the new war g-term war," a in iraq.

we at war? >> there's a tortured debate going on about terminology. is getting used on done what we need to get done to isil. ut if people need to find a what to land in terms of we did in iraq, originally, this is not war. not combat troops on the ground. thousands of f people. not that kind of a mobilization. of al qaeda, which we used the word "war" with, yeah. it's in the same context. use it, yes,

we're at war with isil in that sense. but i think it's a waste of time focus on that. frankly let's consider what we defeat o to degrade and isil. that's what i'm frankly much on. focused bringing up al see qaeda and isis here in the same sentence? because , it's a war the united states will try to seize the access. 1,000 americans in iraq. iraq. no war in al qaeda because hey're not combat troops in pakistan or yemen or various other places. t's a little precious to sort of hear kerry say that. that said, it's -- to me kind of

interesting because john kerry has been, i think, out front on saying that the united states to stop and defeat isis. he called them the face of evil last month. president was the one who was reluctant. we saw the president go from guess, or defeat, i destroy isis. so the president i think was the last holdout there. i think kerry's main point is there isn't going to be an iraq and ike in afghanistan. i don't think any republicans are clamoring for that either. it's a red herring. >> talking with eli lake of the daily beast. piece -- the war on isis, may be illegal. we'll start with matthew in mcsville, maryland on the line republicans. good morning. >> good morning. call. you for taking my i heard my comment said in other ways, i'm going to try to do my best here. but i can remember going into iraq when i was in the fifth that and we've been in

area for about 25 years now. beltway ande in the you're -- you're listening to these people and you're seeing they define the actions we're taking over there, it's starting not to pass the smell test. kind of letting people that in t have the united states their best interests define the way that we approach security issues. you can hear it in the way tried to use dent different acronyms to describe it. t's the same people, anything, they will that you're fighting in afghanistan. history ead universal books on men's topics. they're learning to explain to a way that thatdy define the terms. noticed fromwhat i vp the -- the se mant ins that our own leaders are using. tying themselves in knots with who they're fighting. it's like they can't -- they general history on the

area, i think they could figure they're fighting. they're all the same people. there is an ideology. islamic extremism. not the same as islam. n fact, with we know that muslims are the worst and first and most victims of these barbarians. have a point if that.ant to say is the same one. back this callafait, it enslave all women. uslim if you're jewish or christian, you could pay a tax. it's gruesome stuff.

it has also recruited i think a losers roup of kind of in the west who feel that this the opportunity to have kind of exciting to participate in some world historical movement. true, the united states has been fighting this current for sometime. would say 9/11 is the hinge point. the irony here is that the until really about june. obama has tried to say no, no, we're only at war with al qaeda central. and only at war with the yemen.se in he resisted the idea of talking in an he enemy ideological sense. there's anology.

it's not politicalis lam. but an extremist version of political islam. he's facing that. the 2001 irony of authorization use of military force is that by saying that, justifies hat that he war against isisi, she's making the mroint explicitly. it's the same war. isis is chise of fighting al qaeda's former in syria, they're the same velers of ideology. a component d for to address this ideological was nt and saying it totalitarianism conflict in the cold war. muslims who many fight against them. when i've been to iraq as a i spoke to several

chiefs i who turned from al qaeda. they'll have an enemy for life. they face the brutality themselves. togood morning, i would like say that this -- all of this war of the ause of the lies george bush administration, dick rumsfeld. be you have on the guys that the put out aj degreech articles that they're taking to y from overseas nofls influence what they say and in the united states government. he was also captured by the iraq and turned

loose. the very same people that john them are doing this -- host: you're calling in on our line for republicans. with republicans in congress and how they're handling there. rich: more like ron pall who don't believe in this car and stuff. this sh dick chae nigh. >> go ahead. --will the me >> first of all, ron paul is now iving his lunatic opinions on foreign policy on the kremlin-funded r.t. network. one taking direct payment from a foreign government and a foreign -- the intelligence community operates in secret. you can debate this stuff. this president was uninterested in a war until this isis, which is sort of a terrorist army, was able to take over iraqi's -- second-largest--

city, then became enraged when they threaten to wipe out the yazidis. we have three beheading videos. it has moved world opinion to the point where they realize that they cannot believe in a world in which you have the equivalent of al qaeda in the middle east. those are just facts. this is what this group has done. the argument that you could leave them alone and they would leave us alone, it is discredited by events. i will leave it there. host: national security correspondent with "the daily beast." how many times have you traveled overseas to iraq and the region? >> i've been to iraq on three different occasions -- guest: i've been to iraq on three different occasions. i've been to sudan. i've been fortunate to travel a lot myself. host: he's here to take your

questions and comments for about the next 20 minutes. joseph is next on our line for independents. caller: good morning. how are you doing? i want to thank you for taking my call. i was listening to all the people complaining about obama. , vietnam,ary person gulf war, bosnia, i will tell you something. i've served a lot of different people, muslims, arabs, jews, roman catholics. my mom and my grandma were concentration campers. they escaped because my father helped them, and another friend. i think this is an illegal war against muslims, because not all muslims are the same as we think they are. we have a group of people here in america, ku klux klan, organized crime, neo-nazis. fine. you take care of it.

host: i will let you jump in if you want to. guest: it is a fair analogy to say that al qaeda and isis are to islam and muslims as the ku klux klan is to christianity as a burgeoning terrorist fringe. that is a correct analogy. colorado.e is in go ahead. caller: i have a few questions. , arer as isis and al qaeda they not one and the same? just if rent terminology for isis? different terminology for isis? isn't this another roundabout way to go in and get assad out of power? , the bushuestion is administration, the obama administration, neither one of them want to release the 28

pages on 9/11. i was just wondering why. don't know why they won't release the 28 pages. i suspect because it implicates the saudi government. i think that is probably it. on the second point, i don't think that these air strikes a threat to the assad regime, although it is true that assad has had an opportunistic relationship with these ultra jihadists. he worked with them when they were funneling foreign fighters into iraq. mores gone after much moderate and cam ends of the free syrian army and has left some of these isis positions -- of the freeampments syrian army and has left some of these isis positions -- what was the first thing? host: the general thing about

the relationship between isis and al qaeda. guest: isis began as an al qaeda franchise. they show the same ideology, but the two groups are very much competitors and certainly distinct. both as a warranty -- both baghdadi have said this themselves, you are no longer a formal affiliate of al qaeda. that's why you cannot say they are the same organization. host: one thing i want you to talk about is her latest column in the daily -- "the daily beast," about contractors ready to cash in on the isis war. guest: people who are military contractors, a lot of them have had long and important careers in military. there's something wrong with go into this -- going into the security contractor industry. i'm not like someone who thinks it is all suspect, but, that

said, the president has said a couple of things that are noteworthy. number one, this is going to take more than a few months. now he is saying it is going to be a few years, probably lasting beyond his presidency. the length of time is important. he promised no combat boots on the ground. when you have that, their companies -- there are companies that are specialists in training up local forces, similar to our ,reen berets in the military turning them into these fighting forces. it's been done by contractors for some time now. the view is that it is probably going to be a lot of reliance on these contractors. the irony, of course, because blackwater was very much associated with the republican party, and joe biden himself, in wanted toterm prosecute blackwater from the

justice department and so forth. this administration tried to distance itself from these contractors. it is almost certain, at least the contractors that i interviewed, that they believe this will be an opportunity for them and that obama will be relying on them for this new war. host: we are talking with eli lake from "the daily beast." you can see his recent columns online. he is here to answer your questions or comments. al, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to get something understood here. -- first ofat obama all, i do agree with what obama is doing. he has a hard job. i don't know of anybody who would want a job like that. but the question is, things like -- the talk is out now that he had to have the permission of congress to do things and everything. why is it that going back 20

some years or so, president reagan did not have to have the permission -- or i believe he did not have. he did not have the permission from congress to send army troops into grenada -- granada. neither did he have permission to send thousands of combat , where over lebanon 400 men got killed. i wonder if you could answer that? guest: the constitution, legal scholars say -- there are two views on it. one is that congress declares war, and the other is the president is the commander in chief of the military. modern presidents, including reagan, say that are able to -- say that article two gives them powers such as were used in grenada. in the case of what we are

envisioning now against isis, by the president's own admission, it is a long war, not just weeks or months, a couple of airstrikes and then we are out. that is one factor that plays in. i'm not a lawyer. i think that is an important difference. there is a broader point beyond the law. what we saw in the bush years was that despite even a resolution authorizing the iraq war, once that war went badly, once there were no weapons of mass destruction that were found, it became a partisan issue. when you have a resolution that authorizes a war like this, it is a way of having a political buy-in so that you avoid having that war become a partisan issue. be a view, it should not democrat or republican war, it should be an american war. that's the benefit of having one of these observations.

host: robert is on the line. good morning. caller: good morning. i certainly the 82nd airborne many decades ago. ics not being able to squander our resources anymore. when you have in iraq he army that throws down it swept -- have an iraqi army that throws down its weapons and runs away after a decade of training -- why are we the policemen of the world question mark why do we have to involve ourselves? we cannot afford this anymore. that is a viewpoint that has been gaining a lot of supporters recently. certainly, this idea of america not being the policemen of the world. here's the irony. the 20th -- the 2000 republican 'snvention, condoleezza rice introduction to the mass media is a speech in which she says america is not the world's 911.

then 9/11 happens. then we become even more engaged in this long war, which the president has tried to get us out of. now he is dragged back in. i think it is true that america should not be the only kind of -- the nation of last resort. it is so frustrating. i was seeing a lot of this on-the-job training during the last decade, where the american -- to see that iraq he military throw down their weapons -- to see the iraqi military throw down their weapons. i'm not making excuses, but one of the factors that led to the failure of the iraqi military in mosul is that the prime minister, nouri al-maliki, governed in many ways like saddam. he alienated the sunni minorities and others, including his own country,

and replace a lot of confident military leaders with cronies and tried to consolidate his power the way a petty dictator would. people don't want to fight for someone or something like that. that i think is another factor. all of these wars have that political component. i'm not entirely sure we've seen that this was just a matter that we failed in training them. i think it was that malik he failed asthat maliki a leader and we failed in trying to use our influence to stop him from doing what he is doing, which is tearing the country apart. host: marion, ohio. of "theon with eli lake daily beast." caller: people declare war on us and we just ignore it. we ignored 9/11. they were too small to cause trouble. world war ii on pearl harbor,

they attacked first, then declared war. we kept all the ships together and didn't pay attention. why we did that is beyond me. we cannot be asleep at the switch. look at 9/11. who was getting benefit from shorting the markets? what countries, what peoples. we should study that to find out whether it is more than just an attack. it was a financial attack on our country to try to really set us back. host: on being asleep at the switch? >> it's the way of things, usually. the united states is attacked, then we are surprised. they have spent an enormous amount of resources in trying to prevent another mass casualty attack. i would say that united states is much better at fighting a war on terrorism after 9/11. host: patrick is on the line for democrats.

it is almost astonishing when i look at the level of deceit, particularly when it comes to the facts of the words existential threat. the only ex essential threat to the united states of america is the israeli government -- the only exit stencil -- only existential threat to the united states of america is the israeli government. guest: make sure if you're look for the to man in a white lab coat. he is only trying to help your recovery. i wish you luck with your mental illness. jim is in winston-salem, north carolina, on our line for republicans. caller: the problem with what we are having today is the same problem we've had with washington as a whole. we doicans and democrats, the same thing in the same manner, expecting different results, and we never get that.

evidently, there are people who realize we are not at war with isil. problem, let's take care of it quickly and be done with it. we are -- we are not at war with the whole muslim world. with this particular group, when conflict, and who calls it a conflict? i have not heard anybody call it a war or a conflict. they killed two of our citizens. if we need to bomb them, let's bomb them. guest: that's what we are doing. i agree. we are not at war with all the muslims. it is an ideological component of it that you cannot win with just bombing and military action alone. host: do you want to talk about the coalition being built here? arab nations building airpower in u.s. strikes against isis?

guest: it's been a harder slog than they had anticipated. this entire effort has cost the white house. the white house did not want to do this. they've been reluctant at every stage. every state has taken longer than they thought. i don't think it was a particularly fruitful meeting between kerry and former general -sisi. al states, for saudi emirates, united arab they know that while they have been saying iran is the number one threat, they know that groups like isis are also a major threat. i think they have an interest in trying to defeat them.

they came two years ago to the united states, three years ago, when syria was devolving, and said we need to do something, and obama pretty much declined. they might be saying too little, too late, but the u.s. has engaged and they will probably eventually end up helping. host: just a few minutes left with eli lake of "the daily beast." from sioux falls, south dakota, on our line for independents. caller: good morning. i was listening to this guy here talk about what i was going to talk about. the sad truth is that barack obama, president barack obama had to keep us out of the syrian mess. people like mccain and probably guys like this guy here, when it first started, they wanted to put boots on the ground and things like that.

we had to ukrainian deal. the president wasn't willing to just jump in there and risk troops' troops lives -- lives. he wanted to make sure he could get the coalition, just like , just like in the mideast. if the americans would have gone in there, like mccain and this guy here probably would have wanted, we would be sitting there with probably 100,000 troops and still have 10 years -- and still find ourselves five to 10 years from now trying to get out. guest: i think that if they would have let 10,000 or 20,000 stay as a safety valve in iraq, i think there would have been more little -- political influence. if there was more political yet -- there would have been more political influence to wield against maliki, save him from himself. a lot of this could have been prevented.

president obama has a point. he addressed this last month in a press conference before he left from martha's vineyard. if there were just all these troops there, it would have been worse. if there were troops there and those troops brought with it -- andnse of seriousness when there was an active ambassador -- if there was a policy that at the very top of the u.s. government, the u.s. was going to try to influence maliki and say, we will sell you the f-16, but you have to make a deal, you have to do this or that, and tried to use its influence with maliki, instead of giving the impression, we are out of here. we will treat you like any other nation -- i think that could have saved a lot of heart ache. maybe that is not a satisfying answer.

i know there is one view that if we had just left troops, it would not have happened. i do think it could have been something done and it wouldn't have been just about leaving troops there. host: good morning. caller: by attacking these people, i think we are only legitimizing them. if they want to live in this geographic state, it is the 21st century. blue jeans and rock 'n roll killed communism in a way. host: explain what you would do here. what do you think the united states should do? i believe that they will fall flat on their face. if they want to fall flat on their face and they want to be left in the dirt -- they have this overwhelming fear that these people are going to come out of the woodwork and come and get us, but i believe

we have a lot more to worry about. the poor people in america are going to terrorize you faster than jihadists out there. i disagree with that. i like the expression of it may not make a good breakfast -- -- i respect that, but i disagree. this organization is pure evil. they will be a threat to our allies and eventually us. they have made it very clear that they intend to attack us. if you give them the resources of the state, they make $1 million per day. if they are able to consolidate their game, they will use that to threaten not just us, but all of our allies. we are going to do a good thing by trying to destroy them. host: on our line for independents, good morning. alabama thank you for taking my call. i wanted to ask -- >> thank you for taking my call.

i wanted to ask, neri al-maliki -- nouri al-maliki -- if you had the opportunity to choose, to go back in time, what would be better for iraq? al-am hussein or nouri maliki? guest: put me on the spot, i think maliki is better than saddam. sunni, butein was a he defined himself as a secular baathist. of the mostruly one evil figures in the 21st century. he brutalized the iraqi people. he was a threat to his neighbors and to the united states. -- as as malik he was maliki was -- i use the phrase she is saddam because of his -- the phrase his saddam because of

consolidation of power, but it did not reach the level of her barbarity of -- of pure barbarity of saddam. host: you can find his latest piece at thedailybeast.com. guest: thank you for having me. host: up next in our weekly "your money segment, we look at the portion of the budget that looks -- that deals with counterterrorism operations. we will be right back. >> high, we are excited to announce that it is launch week for the 11th annual student cam -- hi, we are excited to announce that it is launch week for the 11th annual studentcam contest. this year's theme is the

broadest ever. it is the three branches and you. tell a story that demonstrates how a policy, law, or action by either the executive legislative, or judicial branch of the government has affected you and your life or your community. the competition is open to students in grades six through 12. students may work alone or in groups of up to three. contestants are asked to produce a five minute to seven many it -- to seven minute video documentary supporting their topic and to include some c-span programming. the $100,000 in cash prize will go to 150 students and 53 teachers. the grand prize winner with the best overall entry will win $5,000. the deadline for entries this year is january 20, 2015. winners will be announced in march. studentcam.org for more information on the contest. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we take a look at how your

money is at work in different federal programs. this week, we are joined by a senior fellow at the center for strategic and budgetary assessment. how does the pentagon create a budget for counterterrorism operations, like what's happening now against isis? >> these are emerging requirements that don't fit in :he normal budget -- guest these are emerging requirements that don't fit in the normal budget. they use supplemental appropriations. supplemental appropriations have been used since 9/11 to fund operations in iraq, afghanistan, and now in iraq again. the pentagon had submitted a supplemental war budget request for 2015, for the fiscal year that starts on october 1. they submitted that in may. they did not anticipate they would be needing additional funding for isis at that time.

host: how much money is in the account right now? how does congress go about refilling that account if it needs to be refilled? congress appropriated 85 billion dollars in supplemental war funding, supposedly for operations in afghanistan. it is far in excess of what they actually needed for afghanistan. we are in the process of drawing direct -- down troops there. there is excess there that was added to the war supplemental that was being used for regular peacetime defense funding, things that had been in the base budget in the past. plenty of extra margin in there. i should note the reason that folks don't want to use the supplemental war budget for additional funding, it does not ps thatgainst the ca were put in place in 2011 that limit how much congress can appropriate for defense and nondefense.

there is a convenient lope -- luke hill. -- there is a convenient loophole. once you exceed your budget cap, a sequester is ordered and these accounts get cut just like any other. you set aside some piece of that money. the sequester to the fact, they moved funding from their base budget back into the accounts that had been cut -- when the sequester took effect, they moved funding from their base budget back into the accounts that had been cut. for 2015, they requested about $59 billion. $54 billion of that was allocated for afghanistan. included in that was $4 billion for counterterrorism operations, the counterterrorism partnership fund. host: and this was a new budget item. gost: it was supposed to after terrorist organizations and help other countries, arm

them and train them so that they could fight terrorist groups like isis. of course, that was requested before we saw the major gains that isis had made in syria and iraq. host: put it into numbers for us. how much is the u.s. spending so far since july when these operations began, the new operations against isis, and at what point would that funding runs out and the president have to go back to congress for more money? guest: we have one good marker. the pentagon came out couple weeks ago and said at that point they had spent about half $1 billion from mid-june until the end of august -- about half a from mid-junes until the end of august. that is 1/10 of 1% of the defense budget this year. they've been able to absorb that in money that was already appropriated by congress. they are continuing to spend.

the burn rate should start to ramp up. host: more troops going over? going over.troops more air strikes, more intelligence missions that we are flying over iraq and that could expand into syria. i caution people that as we see it increase, it won't be long before we probably start to see it decrease again. we will begin to run out of targets on the ground. we are already hitting all of the low hanging fruit, the things that are obvious, armored vehicle, checkpoints. we are taking out those targets. estimates i have seen so far are that we've dropped about 250 bombs already as of the president's speech. i expect we will expand and see the pace of operations go up, but it won't be long before he start -- we start to see that go down, simply because we will run

out of targets or it will start to get harder. we are talking about paying for operations against isis, where that money comes from, what accounts those are in in the pentagon budget. if you have questions or comments in this segment, give us a call. democrats can call (202) 585-3880. republicans, (202) 585-3881. independents, (202) 585-3882. todd harrison, as folks are calling him on the phone, our last guest had a piece in the daily beast, "contractors are ready to cash in on isis war." there's a question on twitter. "does the money for fighters against isis come from the pentagon budget?" guest: it does. i have not seen numbers. if we are, the contractors would dod fundingof the

if they are being -- if they are doing dod functions. in iraq and afghanistan previously, we had about as many contractors in the country as we did troops in -- troops on the ground. we had over 100,000 troops on the ground and 100,000 contractors as well. there has been some misperception about what those contractors do. the vast majority are doing relatively mundane tasks, food preparation, laundry, things like that. only about 10% of the contractors that we used in iraq and afghanistan were actually used for security, whether they were shooting at people -- that's what gives people pause about the use of contractors. but that is not the main use of contractors that we have seen. host: of the 1500 or so u.s. personnel that have gone over, we don't have any information yet about contractors going over. guest: and i would suspect that their mission is more intelligence collection, doing

some training and assisting and assessing of other groups on the ground that we may want to partner with. i would expect there to be contractors in there, just not in large numbers. is here toharrison answer your questions. pete is here from windsor, connecticut. caller: good morning. just to let you know, you could spend all the money you want, but the bottom line is the united states will never win anything in the middle east as long as israel and apec are up ourh -- are attached to congress' sphincter. host: we will move on. there is the overseas contingency operation budget. can you how these relate to each other? --st: and didn't see contingency operations is the name if the obama administration

has given to these war supplemental requests, supplemental war funding requests that come out each year. under the george w. bush administration, it was called the global war on terrorism fund. i don't care for the names. it is extra money needed to fight the wars. this was created within the oco budget requests, specifically for activities like we are seeing right now in iraq. host: from starkville, mississippi, on outline for independents. caller: good morning. i have a question. why did president obama authorized the lifting of inding for terrorism september, 2013, to fund rebel groups in syria? those rebel groups seem to have

turned themselves into isis, mysteriously, though we don't know where isis is. could you answer that question for me question mark guest: -- for me? guest: sure. from my home state of mississippi. what the caller is referencing, we were looking at conducting operations in syria, bombing in syria, but we were going to do something different. we were going to go after the syrian regime to stop them from attacking their own citizens, to stop them from using a metal weapons against their own citizens. a lot has changed since then. do of the things we did starting last year and perhaps ,ven earlier than we knew helping arm some of the opposition groups against the assad regime in syria. that's where it gets complicated. those opposition groups are splintered. there are reportedly several different opposition groups that are more moderate that could

potentially be friendly to the united states. there are the groups that are ,ominated by islamic militants which have coalesced into what we now call isis or isil, or they call themselves just islamic state. that group has spread its influence and projected out into parts of iraq since last year. it is a complicated mess on the ground, quite frankly. we have been trying to assess -- assist some of the rebel groups in syria, but we've been trying to focus those efforts on rebel groups that are more moderate, that would potentially be friendly to the u.s. in the end. this is a difficult needle to thread, quite frankly. can you go through what the president is asking for funding wise for the moderate syrian rebels, and where would that money come from? guest: there have not been a lot of specifics. they are trying to figure out

which moderate rebel groups have potential, that are safe for us to fund, that aren't going to come back and transfer those weapons to isis or lose them to isis him and then we end up fighting our own weapons -- to isis, and then we end up fighting our own weapons. part of the process is to take some of those moderate rebels out of the country and train them elsewhere so that they can become, more competent fighting force and fight more effectively for themselves and then take them back into syria. the funding for that would be relatively modest. the army of these moderate rebels we are talking about, they are not going to be able to get expensive fighter jets or helicopters or tanks. that is not what they need and it would not help them anyway. they would be getting things like better rifles, perhaps some weapons they could use against armored vehicles like isis has acquired when they had captured some units from iraq. be relativelyld

small dollar amounts. the bigger part would be that training. that's where we have to rely on our allies in the region. host: in terms of the equipment that has been captured, can you talk about the money that the u.s. spent to train and arm the iraqi army? a total of $20 million? guest: we spent many billions on arming and training the iraqi military. when isis made some big gains into iraq, units of the iraq he military just melted away and the isis -- of the iraqi military just melted away and able to personnel were capture the equipment. they are operating a number of american-made and american financed equipment that used to belong to the iraqi military. what we have found so far, the last numbers i saw, we had humvees,re than 19

us-made humvees that we had given to the iraqi military. host: what does a humvee cost? guest: a quarter of a million dollars, generally. we've seen reports that we had rap vehicle, mine resistant and protective vehicles. these were more resistant to ied attacks that were harming so many of our troops. we left many of those with the iraqi military. isis has captured those -- one of those. we have bombed the mrap. they cost about $1 million each. they are very expensive vehicles . now we are having to spend money to take them out as well. host: todd harrison is a senior fellow for defense budget at the center for strategic and

budgetary assessments. here to answer your questions for the next 25 minutes or so on the "washington journal." let's go to our line for republicans. caller: my name is vista, v- i-s-t-a. i'm fascinated by the concept of trying to get the american public to support this war, and it is a war, and financially support -- ask our representatives to support this war when our president will not even identify what we are fighting -- and that is a religious ideology by a people that are savages, that believe that their god is the only god and that only by submission to their god and people submitting to their god will they -- will we, as a civilization, be allowed to live. our president will not recognize that fact. he won't even call the islamists. what do we do about that?

how do we approach that problem? we are powerless to do anything like that. -- to do anything about that. it is up to you -- folks like you, sir, that stand up and demand the american public gets the truth. host: todd harrison, can you talk about how the administration has tried to sell this effort on capitol hill? what do members of congress have to approve? guest: when the president made his speech last week and laid out who are we fighting, he was trying to be very specific, and the collar might take issue -- the coaller might take issue wih this, that we are not fighting a religion or an ideology. we are fighting specific terrorist groups. he was trying to narrow it down specifically to isis. the groups of people we see carrying out these attacks and activities throughout syria and

iraq right now and trying to narrow it to that group. that was part of the selling campaign, if you will, on capitol hill. we haven't seen much of an effort to persuade people on capitol hill just yet. quite frankly, they don't need to. they feel they have the authority to conduct the military operations they are planning to conduct. they would love to have additional writ -- approval from congress. but they feel they can go ahead and do without that. they can use money that has been appropriated. we are talking millions and single-digit billions of money, but that is actually small in the overall defense budget. they can move money between accounts and do this. it becomes a serious issue for congress to consider.

once we been in this operation and seen the pace of operations after several months, several months into the new fiscal year itt starts on october 1, if continues, and it looks like it is consuming more and more resources, then the pentagon would want to come back and ask for additional money. that's when they would have to thata good campaign congress should appropriate additional money for this. independentne for s. caller: how can we afford all this? that's what i want to know. guest: whether or not we can the clear answer is yes, we can afford it. it is whether or not we are willing to spend the money. to put it in perspective, we spend about half $1 trillion per year on defense, -- half a

trillion dollars per year on defense, not counting money that we spend on wars. this is tiny in comparison to the dod budget and the overall federal budget. in 2015, the overall federal budget will be about $3.9 trillion. we are talking about billions with a b. this could certainly fit within the federal and defense budget. it is a matter of whether or not we want to do this as a policy issue. host: in terms of bending back the federal budget, the deficit, didn't some of those projections count on winding down the wars in iraq and afghanistan? guest: they do. they counted on some reduction in war spending. but to put this in perspective, what we are spending on afghanistan, even in 2015, the administration requested $54

billion for afghanistan and will only have 11,000 troops there on average throughout the year. we are still spending much more on afghanistan. we will be averaging -- to put that in perspective, that is $1 billion per week we will be spending on afghanistan. what we are talking about here, operations against isis, is a fraction of that. war funding is projected to come down in the coming years, but this really doesn't change the object or he that much -- change the trajectory that much, in my opinion. host: going out oklahoma. caller: if we would secure our border and stop letting foreigners coming to the country, we would have little to fear from foreign terrorists. we hand out visas to over one million foreigners entering our country every year. we have nearly 100,000 chinese students studying in america.

while we are distracted in the middle east, the russians are and thever the ukraine baltic states of latvia, estonia. the chinese are very active south of the rio grande. we are distracted by another conflict in the middle east while this is going on. host: do you want to talk about homeland security spending? guest: when we talk about the defense budget, i think it is important to talk about what is not included there. trillion dollars does include a number of activities that folks would probably think of as needed for the defense of the country in tact howdy -- in totality. to the caller's point about immigration and our southern border, the security issue there, i think what the administration would say is that certainly is an issue and something they should work on, but on 9/11, the terrorist attack was carried out by 19 men

who did not immigrate through our southern border. we have a number of other ways that people can get into the country if they want to do harm to the country. one of the chief concerns the administration has raised about isis is that there appeared to be some americans who have gone over to fight with this group and therefore have american passport and could potentially try to get back into the country. the ones we know about are not going to make it back in very well because we will be looking for them. the concern is the unknown people that may have traveled there that we don't realize, as well as europeans that may have been traveling to fight with isis. they could come back to europe and then we have much more easy visa policies for visiting the u.s. from europe. that is a concern. it only takes a handful of people to do a tremendous amount of damage. there is concern that that could be a way for folks to leak back into the united states.

host: coming back to "the daily beast" story, contractors looking to cash in, with our last guest, eli lake. "why not have enlisted personnel do food, maintenance, laundry instead of contractors question mark it might increase recruits -- instead of contractors? it might increase recruits." guest: in prior wars, vietnam, korea, world war ii and before, we did use many of our own uniformed military personnel for these types of activities, support activities. of military personnel has grown significantly, particularly over the past decade. the cost per service member in the military, total cost, including pay, allowing, health care, retirement benefits has been about six -- 76% above inflation.

people cost us a lot more right now. it is cheaper to use a contractor in a war zone to provide these types of services than it is to use a member of the u.s. military. we don't have as many people in the military as we used to. in vietnam, we were over 3 million people in our active-duty force. we are at about 1.4 million right now. we have to conserve our resources in terms of personnel better. the contractors near using for these types of -- laundry services, food preparation -- they are third-party nationals. they are not u.s. citizens or iraqi citizens or afghan citizens. they come from other countries and are willing to work for lower wages so we can get the job done at a lower cost using contractors rather than our own military personnel. host: let's go to columbus, mississippi, our line for democrats. caller: good morning.

they keep talking about money, money, money. they spend millions and billions of dollars just to get elected. i think the american people, white and black, should get together, start loving one another, and stop fighting. earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, fires, you name it. we need to love one another and stick together as a nation so we can fight this nation. want to talk about comparisons between election spending and pentagon budget spending? we are talking different magnitudes, correct? guest: i think the obama campaign in 2012 spent about $1 billion on the campaign. that is still a drop in the bucket compared to what we are talking about spending in the overall federal government, a poor ching -- government,

trillion.g $4 this is a country of over 300 million people. we are still the wealthiest country on earth. in terms of what we can afford, i think it is clear that we can afford to spend what we are spending. we could afford to spend more if we chose to spend more. that is a separate question, whether or not we should be spending it and whether or not we are spending it appropriately . that is the question for congress to answer. host: have about 15 minutes left. we are talking with todd harrison, senior defense fellow for the center force strategic and budgetary -- the center for strategic and budgetary assessment. host: we are a nonprofit, nonpartisan defense think tank. we do research and analysis into defense-related issues. i work on the budget side of our organization, analyzing all things defense budget,

everything from what we are spending on different weapons systems to what we spend on military readiness to what we spend on war-related funding and operations like we are conducting right now in iraq. host: you can follow todd harrison on twitter. @toddharrisondc. john in virginia. caller: thank you for taking my call. since 9/11, we created more contractors that are run by old, retired generals. you need to tell the american people the truth. the reality is we have more contractors than any other country. -- e afghanistan never built anything, yet they use our budget to send that money back to this country and build more houses. when we go to the country and we hire contractors, it has to be

responsible. we have a lot of contractors who are ex generals -- who are ex-generals. they hire contractors, yet they don't build anything in those countries. in afghanistan, there are not much schools the contractors built. people are getting more poor. you see people who are introvert or so to make $150,000 per year -- to our interpreters who make $150,000 per year. host: as you're responding, i want to show this chart showing wartime supplemental spending, -- overseas contingency overseas operation contingency budget. these numbers are in the billions of dollars, $24 billion in fiscal year 2005, at a peak billion in 2011, down

to $86.7 billion in fiscal year 2014. guest: we have to define what kind of contractors we have been talking about. we have been talking about contingency contractors, contractors we use in a war zone somewhere for a specific military contingency. as i said before, our use of contingency contractors has been almost the same number of contractors as troops but -- deployed in these countries over the past decade, a much higher use of contractors than we've seen in the past. we have an all-volunteer military now. the other types of contractors are our service support contractors, folks who provide professional services to the military, not related specifically to a particular conflict. i used to be one of these, full disclosure. booz allen hamilton.

the third group of contractors are the ones that work with the u.s. defense industry to build products for the department of defense, like weapons systems. dod is not employing them directly on a per person basis. dod is buying a product from a company and many of these companies are hiring people to build these products. lockheed martin, boeing, .orthrop grumman, raytheon the contractors fall into this third category. to put some numbers on how many service support contractors do we have -- the military does not track it exactly. it is probably in the neighborhood of about one million, about as many contractors as dod civilians working for the department of defense, direct employees of the .ederal government

probably about as many service support contractors as those. in terms of the contractors out in the industry building products, i would not even want to hazard a guess. multiple millions that are employed by that in one form or another. host: in terms of numbers, you say they are not tracked specifically. why is that? has there not been an audit? we have not passed an audit successfully. there have been small audience in small areas. when it comes to service support contractors, dod is buying a service. they contracted by dollars, by service performed. you don't have a good idea how many contractors are actually employed on those contracts, performing that service. they've started to go back and tried to collect this data in recent years. that's why we are able to estimate a bit that it is closer to probably one million in service support contractors. dod is buying it by the service, not by the head.

we don't know for sure how many. independent, good morning. military guy an ex- myself. usually, you have to follow the money. we've read the papers about this group over there making about $3 billion -- $3 million a day in their oil. it seems like a drop in the bucket. why don't you go take it from them? i realize they are, quote-unquote, a "formidable" force at this point, but it could make the difference, don't you agree? guest: we are going after specific targets, either underground or out of the areas -- forcing ice is either ou-- of eitheris out

underground or out of the areas they have been in. apparently, we do not want to end up owning the territory again. we are trying to any of our partners in the region, specifically the iraq he military, the peshmerga, the kurdish forces, to come back and take the ground back from isis, and take whatever resources isis has been using to finance their operations. host: can you talk about the efforts to choke off the funding going into isis, not just what the caller was talking about, concerns about money coming in from other countries and other regions of the world? we have been making concerted efforts for years to cut off the funding to different terrorist organizations. we are stepping up that effort against isis right now and looking at, either wealthy individuals or countries that may be funneling money through

back channels into this organization. we are using a lot of diplomatic means, using a lot of resources at the department of treasury to track the flow of money and try to identify where money might be filtering into isis one way or another, and using every means available to stop the flow of funding. host: richard is up next. good morning. caller: please don't hang up on me. let me finish talking. you guys always hang up on people. the chinese are spending all their money. they own 90% of all the resources on earth. while we are spending money making sure our contractors make money. thatched on c-span 3 they appropriated $127 billion for infrastructure in afghanistan. three democrats questioned them about it. 26% -- 27% of the

money spent. where did the rest of the money go? these contractors are getting rich. you complain about people getting food stamps, but why doesn't america settle -- care more about buying mineral resources and building our country up instead of building china up? guest: i would not want to address the first point. i don't think that is correct that china owns 90% of the worlds resources -- the world's resources. terms ofite wealthy in natural resources, as are many other countries around the world. i think that statistic may come from chinese dominance of the rare earth metals market, where they did corner that market, at least temporarily, on rare earth metals, which are not rare, actually. we have mines in the u.s. that we closed down because they are not economical and because of high pollution from them. mines are opening up all over

the world to counter chinese dominance of that market, so it will be short-lived. in terms of what we spent rebuilding infrastructure in afghanistan and iraq, part of a problem we found is that we were going in and trying to do the things we would want to do in a rebuild infrastructure like highways, power grids, communications infrastructure, so that the economy could work, could function were properly and lead to economic growth and peace and prosperity for the people. what we found though is that it was very difficult to carry out these projects because of the security environment had degr aded so much. we might intend to build a road somewhere and we might start building it, but the workers themselves in that area were coming under so much attack, they would not be up to carry out the work as planned or it would be much slower than planned and require far more resources. in some cases, you build something new and insurgents, and blow it up. you have to start over from

scratch. that is a lot of what plagues our reconstruction efforts in both iraq and afghanistan. it proved quite expensive, not just in terms of dollars, but in lives lost as well. host: the color also seemed -- the caller also seemed concerned about waste, fraud, and abuse in some of the efforts funded overseas. who oversees these accounts? are there any sorts of audits? what happens to unspent money to make sure it isn't going out in places where it should not? guest: ultimate oversight belongs to congress. there have been dozens of hearings over the past several years looking at these types of issues. well.ecently as there are also special inspector general offices that have been appointed to oversee reconstruction in iraq and afghanistan and to make sure that these funds are being spent appropriately. and they issue reports all of the time.

you can go to their websites, look them up online. they are a really good read. they serve a good purpose. they have uncovered some things the military did not realize was going on. there were instances where we were paying contractors in a or afghanistan, who then turned around and paid bribes to people, which wound up going to fund the insurgency. as soon as we realized that, we cut off that funding, but that's the type of thing that a special inspector general is supposed to do, audit the work and make sure the money is being used effectively. there is oversight, but this is a very difficult type of funding to provide oversight. they point out in many of their reports that it is hard for them to go in and do actual audits and inspections because of the security environment. they are not actually able to visit many of the worksites to do the inspection they would

normally do firsthand. so, the work has proved very difficult. i think they've done a great job in uncovering things that the military was not aware of so we could take corrective action. host: up next, ohio, our line for democrats. you are on the line with todd harrison. caller: my husband was in the service 35 years. i was with him, too. that cheneyo say has a lot to do with the contractors over there in afghanistan and iraq. $at happened to the 400 -- 145 million that come up lost and nobody ever found it? cheney seems to have a big hand on everything. what i'm really concerned about

is -- is he still doing that? i mean, it was barbaric, what he did to arlington national cemetery, where my husband is buried. contract, the contractors, when all that money come up missing. host: i want to give todd harrison a chance to respond. sayt: i think it is safe to that former vice president dick cheney does not have much influence in the obama administration at all. whatever may have happened in the past, that is not an issue today. but the use of contractors for iraqi and afghanistan -- for i by and afghanistan is driven military need. we have an all-volunteer force now. these are the first major protracted conflict we fought in american history with an all volunteer force. in order to induce people to

want to serve in the military in a time of war, we decided as a nation to increase compensation and increase it substantially, to the point that it is much more expensive to pay a member of the uniformed military to perform some of these functions in a war zone than it is to hire a contractor to perform them. error certainly ethical issues there are some ethical issues versus whether using a contractor. have comeese issues up in using contractors for securities, facilities, embassies, etc. the core issue, the vast majority of contractors are used for food preparation, laundry, and maintenance. it is really just driven by cost. of host: todd