n iraq and afghanistan. he was honorably discharged. the signing ceremony at the white house is 20 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, this is michelle obama. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states, accompanied by mr. jake would. -- wood. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, this marks a historic event for the veteran community. clay hunt was an amazing and man. it is fitting we are here to sign a bill into law with his name on it. i first met clay in the marine corps. i saw an bodied in hand -- embodied in him the ideal. and afghanistan during our second to her, he was frustrated. i ask him then, why are you here? is said, i'm here for you, jake. that was the type of guy clay was. clay left the marine corps is a proud veteran. i went down to haiti with team rubicon. clay, singer efforts unfold, took off by himself to join us in the ground. when he arrived, he said it looked like we needed some help. he flashed his trademark cheapest grin -- sheepish grin. he struggled to find a job that would provide him the s

iraq or syria. it is not the authorization of another ground war, like afghanistan or iraq. the 2,600 american troops in iraq today largely serve on bases. and, yes, they face risks that come with service in any dangerous environment but they do not have a combat mission. they are focused on training iraqi forces including kurdish forces. as i've said before i'm convinced that the united states should not get dragged back into another prolonged ground war in the middle east. that's not in our national security interest and it's not necessary for us to defeat isil. local forces on the ground who know their countries best are best positioned to take the ground fight to isil and that's what they're doing. at the same time this resolution strikes the necessary balance by giving us the flexibility we need for unforeseen circumstances. for example, if we had actionable intelligence about a gathering of isil leaders, and our partners didn't have the capacity to get them i would be prepared to order our special forces to take action because i will not allow these terrorists to have

isis is a perfect example, of course from the wars in iraq and maybe less so in afghanistan. e are realities that he's going to have to grapple with. >> you mean to tell me, if it hadn't been for us breaking up iraq and then almost breaking up syria, and breaking up libya, if we hadn't created that running room for isis, if we hadn't turned those generals and all the other officers out of the iraqi army and sent them out there for nowhere, that there wouldn't have been a recruitment by the extremes of islamism? you mean it has a cause and effect, bad foreign policy leading to worse consequences? are you arguing that? >> eventually there would have been an isis because the situation in the middle east is what it is. but it might not be in iraq or syria right now. it precipitated that. there was no al qaeda or isis in iraq before we invaded. that's simply a fact. >> so we created the animosity, hostility and the broken-down government. i look back at this and say, give me the generals, the army in egypt, like sadat and those people. it was about their country, it wasn't somethin

i think that is the lesson we learned in iraq and afghanistan. with that i look forward to the testimony and questions. i appreciate the chairman holding the committee, i hearing i should say. >> i thank the gentleman. i mention to members we're supposed to have votes on the floor roughly around 10:40 10:45. i will try to be fairly strict with the time limits so that we can move along smartly. i ask unanimous consent that the full written statement of all of our witnesses be made part of the record. without objection so ordered. let me again thank our witnesses for being here. very pleased to see retired lt. general michael flynn, former director of the defense intelligence agency. mr. william braniff executive director, national consortium for study of terrorism and responses to terrorism with the university of maryland. and dr. mark lynch with the george washington university. all of these gent men have done very serious and helpful work for the committee and the country on the topic of terrorism and we're very grateful to have you with us toda

iraq. the ungoverned spaces will allow terrorists to foe meant the same disaster in afghanistan as we have seen in iraq, growing instability terrorist safe havegness and direct threats to the united states -- havens and direct threats to the united states. i think our former national counterterrorism director put it into perspective, how we should look at afghanistan. i quote, should the american people think this is hopeless? the last 13 years have shown us that the counterterrorism fight and protecting the homeland in this region is not hopeless. we've been very, successful at stopping attacks from the region. and i would flip it around. from a homeland security perspective, i think it is close to hopeless to think we can have that same success without some ongoing presence in the region. reducing to a quote, norm allem about asy presence, at the end -- normal embassy presence at the end of 2016 and announcing it to the enemy, gives terrorists breathing room to plot against the west. as ambassador crocker put it, quote, by fixing a date to draw down to a certain number, and then to draw d

iraq. the ungoverned spaces will allow terrorists to foe meant the same disaster in afghanistan as we have seen in iraq, growing instability, terrorist safe havens and direct threats to the united states. i think our former national counterterrorism director put it into perspective, how we should look at afghanistan. i quote, should the american people think this is hopeless? the last 13 years have shown us that the counterterrorism fight and protecting the homeland in this region is not hopeless. we've been very, successful at stopping attacks from the region. and i would flip it around. from a homeland security perspective, i think it is close to hopeless to think we can have that same success without some ongoing presence in the region. reducing to a, quote, norm allem about asy presence, at the end -- normal embassy presence at the end of 2016, and announcing it to the enemy, gives terrorists breathing room to plot against the west. as ambassador crocker put it quote, by fixing a date to draw down to a certain number, and then to draw down to basically an office and an embassy simply te

it's not like iraq and afghanistan where our enemy was hiding. they're actually trying to hold land on a daily basis and we don't have the technology that say the united states military has that we could just push our enemies away. it's a daily grind. we're taking a lot of casualties on both sides. >> yeah. let me ask you because you know about the beheadings. you know about the evil. you know about the atrocities. you know about you know, people lined up and they're all assassinated. you've seen it yourself up close and personal. you also know what happens to anybody that is taken captive by them. and you know the risks. and then you hear the president he won't say the word radical islamist. you say that inspired you if he's not going to do anything about it you feel compelled. what would you want to tell the president you're seeing that he obviously isn't getting? >> well for one, politics aside -- well i should say politics is the reason a lot of people are still dying over here. we have u.s. forces on the ground, their hands are tied. they ca

take your eye off the ball in afghanistan. iraq polls our attention away. when we're in afghanistan, that pulled some attention away. at that point time in '06 he was worried about the same thing happening. i have been calling on congress since june. we need to be in this battle against isil and we need to be strong. i'm going to support strong motor action against isil but i am nervous and they think we do need to use history as our guide and not let the battle against isil deflect any attention away from the situation in afghanistan and our continued need to harvest and accelerate the gains we have made there. sebastian saavedra comment. as we get into the discussion i some the discussion i slump of amateur were not taking our eye off the ball in afghanistan and the great work we are doing. you indicated you don't think the taliban is not an existential threat to the nation. we had testimony last year from her predecessor that corruption could be an existential threat to the nation because it weakens peoples belief and believe in

important we are providing opportunities especially for these young veterans returning from iraq afghanistan to join our forces as members the reason i know it is working i am talking to them they are telling me that when they came back to state sided that it was not as easy as they not not everybody but not as easy as they thought to just jump right into a sense of normalcy and ride into againful employment or education pathway, but service in particular speaking about amere corp where we could tap their leadership organization skills to apply that to provide service and they could be still providing service for our country. while trying to figure out the next step. >> that is right. >> i will take that any day, i will take a returning soldier any day who wants to give give back to our country as worker because benefits as well even programs taking a step further, where we have members who are veterans serving in a program that is delivering services to veterans and familiar members we have 26,000 amere corp or senior corp members veterans several thousand more serving as part of he portfol

in afghanistan even this year we're still spending $40 billion and the expenditure for iraq and afghanistanwas something like total over 2 trillion-dollar. while it is not insignificant compare to what we spend in iraq and afghanistan, it's not that much. you have the defense budget about $600 billion. again it's a comparatively small amount. >> that's what i was going to ask you. basically is the money always there for conflict when needed? when you talk about $600 billion defense budget? >> right. if you count our base budget and the war funding budget. the war funding budget is over $50 billion. otherwise, our war funding budget is more than we spent on the whole state department. there is plenty of money in there to do these things. it would still be training and dropping practice ammunition to keep themselves on the cutting edge. >> what about other parts of the coalition? much was made at the start of this fight against isil that the coalition would need sort of air of approval: to give it sort of legitimacy in the region. arab states have a lot of money as well. what are they putting

jake is from team rubicon and a former marine who served in iraq and afghanistan and was clay hunt'sining us. what was your reaction when this bill finally went through? >> quite frankly my reaction was finally. last year the senate and congress failed to pass this bill and push it through and i think the time was right. and i just want to comment paul rieckhoff and others for passing it through. >> tim coburn blocked this because it would add $22 billion in forward spending. did that surprise you in. >> yes. when we think about $22 billion is not something you want to takeoy stand on an insult veterans. it shook the confidence that our generation of veterans has in congress to help make the right decisions to help bring them home effectively from wars in iraq and afghanistan that congress authorizes to send us to to begin with. >> how did the system fail clay hunt? >> our country failed clay hunt it. wasn't just the system at the v.a. really bringing warriors home from iraq and afghanistan is a whole -- it is a holistic mission, it requires congress and the v.a. certainly but requir

afghanistan war. then there's the 2002 iraq war aumf. the president says we should repeal the 2002 awfulumf. i agree. it's a little trickier because it's the authorization for our ongoing activities in afghanistan. so we can't simply repeal it today. we'd have to amend it. that's why i support sunsetting that 2001 aumf at the same time that the one we're debating now sunsets so in three years we can have a discussion about whether or not we need to renew the fight against isil and how we put confines around the broader fight against the remnants of al qaeda. >> senator, are you comfortable with the extent to which congress just in general has abdicated its war-making authority and seeded it really to a series of presidents that congress gives these broad authorizations and essentially leaves it to the executive branch to decide how to make war or whether to. >> yeah, it's not a mistake that the constitutional foundling fathers put congress' article i and the executive as article ii. we've totally abdicated our responsibility as a co-equal branch on foreign affairs. we should have been debatin

do you want another kind of iraq or afghanistan deployment of tens of thousands of u.s. e? >> no. >> if the u.s. sends troops into iraq or syria, with the air power, the u.s. military capability they could get the job done right? >> yeah. but you don't need that. i want to destroy isil. i want a strategy that makes sense. >> how do you do that? >> the first thing is you do is train the iraqi army the kurds, increase the capacity. get the tribes away from isil. the first thing is convince people actually committed to winning. when you ask people to go in on the ground you have to be willing to go with them. they have capabilities that they lack. >> you want boots on the ground? you want combat forces. how many combat forces do you think would be necessary to destroy isis american troop snz. >> we have 3,000 now. i've been told by experts that you need american advisers probably at the battalion level. helicopter medevac, special forces logistics, things they don't have. somewhere around 10,000. here is the good news. we can do this i think with around 10,000. the bad news

in iraq and afghanistan, he lost good friends. after one buddy died clay slept in his empty bunk for a while to stay close just a little longer. a few weeks later, another friend was fatally shot right in front of him. there was nothing clay could do to save him, but he was still racked with grief and guilt. when he got home he found it hard to go to sleep or to football games or anywhere that was loud or crowded. part of what made him remarkable was he was able to name the problem. he understood it. like many of our troops and veteran. as a country, we've been able to deal with diseases like post-traumatic stress. more counselors have been put in place to improve status of care. it's not a sign of weakness to ask for help it's a sign of strength. clay hunt was that way, he asked for help. in fact he did everything we urge people with post-traumatic stress to do. he reached out to his family. they embraced him with love. he opened up to other veterans and they were there for him, too. he sought treatment not once but repeatedly an

military bases across iraq and afghanistan. at the height of the wars morp than 250 bases burnt their trash. releasing large plumes of plaque smoke into the air. >> all the burning was done wrong. and everybody knows that. >> with years of loving from advocates like burnpit 360, they started a group of people that felt sick. >> a lot of people feel like it's our generation agent orange. >> reporter: thornton's wife jamie says her husbands feels betrayed after serving his country for more than 10 years. >> here these people go risking so much and so much for our country, and then our country doesn't stand... ..you know >>> fast-forward to the outcome of a special investigators report on the burn pit concluding that the pentagon wasted more $20 million on incinerators never used in afghanistan, and banned its like tyres and batteries were burnt as recently as 2013. the watchdog says the dod needs to do a better job holding contractors accountable. veterans may be doing that. hundreds are suing kbr, military contractor for neglige

he previously served as top intelligence advisor to general stanley mcchrystal in iraq and afghanistan. he is accredited with revolutionizing how intelligence is done inside the military. in 2010 he wrote a similar report called fixing intel a blueprint for making intelligence relevant in the military. it examines the military's inability to understand fundamental questions driving extremists. that paper proves relevant today. i am pleased to have mike flynn at this table for the first time. welcome. >> charlie, thanks so much for having me. >> charlie: i met you when you were a top colleague of stan mcchrystal in afghanistan. he>> he remains a great friend of mine. >> charlie: he knows something about leadership. >> big time across the board. he's doing amazing things today for a lot of organizations and i think that will carry on for a while. >> charlie: we want to talk about i.s.i.s. we had one more example today -- >> yeah. >> charlie: -- when there is on the internet a video of the burning in a cage of a jordanian pilot who lost his plane and had to parachute out and was captured

i think that's the lesson we learned in iraq and afghanistan. with that, i look forward to the testimony, questions and appreciate the chairman holding the hearing. >> i thank the gentleman. i mention to members i think we are supposed to have votes on the floor roughly around 10:40, 10:45, so i am going to try to be fairly strict, be strict with the time limits so we can move along smartly. i ask unanimous consent the full written statement of all our witnesses be made part of the record. without objection, so ordered. let me again thank our witness force being here. very pleased to see retired lieutenant general michael flynn, former director of defense intelligence agency, mr. william bran ig executive director, national consortium for study of terrorism and responses to terrorism with university of maryland and dr. mark lynch with the george washington university. all of these gentlemen have done very serious helpful work for the committee and for the country on this topic of terrorism and we are very grateful to have you with us today. as i

also been moved by the fact that iraq and afghanistan veterans of america was integrally involved innvolved in this legislation but it is just a start. is there a next piece on this agenda? if stuff can happen if the veterans committee that can't happen anywhere else because of the bipartisanship, what is the next step. >> the accountability the bill calls for. we get reports from the outside auditors to look at what the v.a. is doing in mental health care follow through and improve it. this is improving the care of patients as they go through the v.a. one of the biggest problems of suicide is this it is a stigmatize affliction. a lot of people don't want to share the fact they take their own life. we need professional psychiatrists and psychologists in the v.a. that can identify symptoms and people having trouble and can follow them and track them along the way to help bring them back to good solid mental health. >> senator isakson it is great to have you here sir. appreciate you being willing to do this. if you would tell other republicans the senate it is okay to talk to me. i wil

. >> reporter: now clapper specified that half of those attacks occurred in iraq afghanistan, and pakistand at the same time he did say that isil was responsible for more attacks than any other group -- armed group in all of those countries as well as other countries. he was also asked about the number of foreign fighters that isil has now recruited. >> since the conflict began, more than 20,000 sunni foreign fighters have traveled to syria from more than 90 countries to fight the assad regime. of that number at least 13,'600 have extremist ties. hundreds have returned home to europe. about 180 americans or so have been involved in various stages of travel to syria. i should point out this is those who have attempted to go didn't get there, those who got there, and were killed. those who got there, fought and went to another country, and some number have come back. >> tom, what is the prevailing mood in washington? do lawmakers really want to put boots back on the ground? >> well that was one question that was brought up by one senator, and he -- by the way mentioned that the amir of qatar

iraq or syria. it is not the authorization of another ground war like afghanistan or iraq. the 2600 american troops in iraq today largely serve on bases. and, yes, they face the risk that comes with service in any dangerous environment but they do not have a combat mission. they will-r focused on training iraqi forces including kurdish forces. as i've said before, i'm convinced that the united states should not get dragged back into another prolonged ground war in the middle east. that's not in our national security interest and it's not necessary for us to defeat isil. local forces on the ground who know their countries best are best positioned to take the ground fight to isil and that's what they're doing. at the same time this resolution strikes the necessary balance by giving us the flexibility we need for unforeseen circumstances. for example, if we had actionable intelligence about a gathering of isil leaders and our partners didn't have the capacity to get them, i would be prepared to order our special forces to take action because i will not allow these terrorists t

recruited from iraq, afghanistan and lebanon and on the front lines right now trying to hold back theebel attack on a city named duma. the critical battle for duma, coming up. >> our new program at 9 eastern time. stephanie, thank you so much. >>> a second chance, now a program is giving one to stray dogs and convicts. the subject of the films dogs on the inside and we take a look at tonight's first person report. >> dogs on the inside is a documentary report that follows the loving relationships that form at a massachusetts prison. don't throw us away and that program paired abandoned or abused stray dogs with minimum security inmates that were close to being released back into society. >> in some instances like me and sam i could relate to him because sam was left behind. you know, and i went through that as a kid myself. so i know. you know what i mean? >> it was first presented to us as training them, and getting them adopted. it was a lot deeper than what any of us expected. it made me realize that there's a lot more to life than first off than being in prison. but it also inspir

iraq or syria. it is not the authorization of another ground war like afghanistan or iraq. the 2600 american troops in iraq today, largely serve on bases. and yes, they face the risks that come with service in any dangerous environment. but they do not have a combat mission. they are focused on training iraqi forces including kurdish forces. as i've said before i'm convinced that the united states should not deg dragged back into -- get dragged to another ground war in the middle east. that is not in our national security interest and it is not necessary for us to defeat isil. local forcesond ground who know their countries best are best positioned to take the ground fight to isil and that is what they are doing. at the same time this resolution strikes the necessary balance by giving us the flexibility we need for unforeseen circumstances. for example, if we had actionable intelligence about a gathering of isil leaders, and our partners didn't have the capacity to get them i would be prepared to order our special forces to take action because i will not allow these terrori

the guys brought into iraq from afghanistan training them up in an afghan training camp funded by al qaeda. a lot of the guys he brought with limb fellow jordanians. they let him out of prison in 1994 as part of a general amnesty cone citing with king abdullah's ascension to the throne and know him well. we'll from aqi are in their prisons they just hanged in retaliation for this. isis is preying upon that sheer inability and that weakness in the coalition. a lot of countries onboard feel this is not the right strategy. >> to the point of why do they butcher people burn them alive? behead japanese? what did the japanese ever done to them? what has that woman ever done to them? haven't gotten to the point of willingness to led ytology ologyideology, anything else what justifies their behavior beyond religion? anything we do oobttively because it furtherers the causes of what? not about smart politics vis-a-vis, jordanians and their kingdom, what is it in their soul that says anything goes? >> to their mind selling to the world and recruits they belong to crew sader or jewish con spear

think the reason why we went to iraq, i didn't care, i signed up in 2004. >> larry: why did you sign up? i saw the twin towers fall and a few lairts i was in afghanistanch, three times to iraq, two times to afghanistan, something like that. (applause) >> larry: well, do you want to say one last thing? >> yeah, now that they're alapplauding, i just want wanted to also add -- no. (laughter) i think you guys do an amazing job. my father is pakistani, and i grew up with him in canada looking at the tv going, oh these (bleep). and my father in law served over two decades. in getting to know him it's not a caricature the gun slingers versus the other people. the movie was a little bit like duck hunt but instead of ducks, it was iraqis. you know what i mean? >> yeah. i'm sure, being in the war you guys must have met tons of people that were nice that wanted peace. >> but you shouldn't get your full perspective on iraq in a two-hour movie. read a book. come hang out with us. we're not that bad. >> if you're drinking at 6:00 a.m., i will hang out with you. >> exactly. exactly. (applause) >> larry: we may not be able to agree in this movie but we can all agree

is any sort of large-scale long-term commitment of ground combat operations like we saw in iraq and afghanistan previously. but what he does want to preserve is the ability to react to contingencies. and in some cases reacting promptly to contingencies may require ordering military action that does involve combat boots on the ground. and again the two most easily imagined examples are examples in which the president would order military operations involving combat troops to try to rescue u.s. hostages. the president's already done that once. that put combat boots, u.s. combat boots on the ground in syria in an offensive operation. they were running toward a target. firing at isil fighters. right? >> it's already set aside in the amf. >> not really. this phrase is to try to codify exactly what we're envisioning. so enduring offensive ground combat operations means not doing what was done under the previous administration in iraq but yet preserving the ability to order military operations like the one the president has already ordered to try to rescue u.s. hostages. that is the way it's described

iraq or syria. it's not the authorisation of a ground war, like afghanistan or iraq. our partners didn't have the capacity to get them. i would be prepared to order our special forces to take action because i will not allow the terrorists to have a safe haven. >> under article 2 the president is the commander in chief of armed forces. in 2001 in a joint resolution where it's sighted, the use of military force, congress gave the president sweeping powers by declaring that the president is authorised to use necessary and appropriate force against the nation authorisation, that he says: that stands today. the president requested another aumf. authorisation of the use of the military force against i.s.i.l. that's the issue in front of congress now. why do president's ask for congressional authorisation of force, but not a declaration of war. do modern presidents accept they must ask permission to september u.s. forces anywhere on planet earth or any purpose. to talk about the role of the executive, congress and war-making powers i'm joined by mr craig who gave the preside

the experience that i had all too often in trying to support iraq and afghanistan is the executive was that when the troops said they needed something, the response of the bureaucracy tended to be oh we have one of those, we're making one of those, we have one, it will be finished in ten years. i mean, incredibly that is in essence the response that would come back. we'd all recognize immediately that that's not sense call because they needed that equipment, vehicles they needed it now, not 15 years from now. our acquisition system got in the habit, and i think the chairman was referring to this earlier because it's a driver of cost but also this problem got in the habit during the cold war of doing things very slowly. soviet union we always had plenty of time. the soviet union, the cold war would go on for a long time and we would have programs that extended over 10 and 15 years. you can't do that when you're in the middle of a war and people are dying and success depends upon your acting more quickly. that i obviously feel passionately about that anybody who observed that tendency wo

take your eye off the balance in afghanistan. iraq pulls our attention away. when we were in afghanistan in 2001, by 2002 we were in iraq, too, and that pulled some attention away. and at that point in time, in 2006, he was worried about the same thing happening. i have been calling on congress since june, we need to be in this battle against isil. and we need to be strong in it. i'm going to support strong military action against isil. but i am nervous and i think we do need to use history as our guide and not let the battle against isil deflect any attention away from the situation in afghanistan and our continued need to harvest and accelerate the gains that we've made there. so that's just an editorial comment. as we get into the discussion about isil i'm going to try to make sure that we're not takinging our eye off the balance in afghanistan and the great work you're doing. you indicated, i think it was interesting, that you don't think the taliban is now an exissstention threat to the nation. we had testimony last year i think

iraq. american military personnel launched about attack today in afghanistan. last month the washington post ran this story, meet the shadowy figure recruiting for the islamic state in afghanistan. he landed back in southern afghanistan, and he has been recruiting for isis. and that is weird, right? afghanistan is not even contiguous with those countries, but the "washington post" said that they were trying to make a go of it for isis in afghanistan. that report came out last month. today it is reported that guy, that commander was killed in afghanistan by an american drone. a one name guy who everyone said was key to isis's effort to get a foothold in a third country. he was the one guy everyone was willing to say he is the out post of isis in afghanistan. apparently they got him. it was the afghan government that announced that today, but local officials in the area said the actual hit that killed the operative came from a drone. the isis commander and a few others had just returned from a livestock market where they had gone to preach and encourage people to

a couple concerns, i was in afghanistan in 2006, my guard men and women and the then ambassador said you have let iraq take your eye off the ball in afghanistan. iraq pulls our attention away. at that point we were worried about the same thing happening. i have been calling on congress since june, we need to be in this battle against isil, but i am nervous and i think we do need to use history as our guide and not let the battle against isil deflect any attention from afghanistan and our continued need to harvest and accelerate the gains. that is just and from editorial comment. we're trying to make sure we will not take our eye off the ball. you indicated that you don't think the taliban and an x essential threat. -- an x essential -- existential threat to the government. it can exacerbate sectarian divisions as people think one group gets more than the other talk about the administration's attack onit can corruption. >> i do agree that corruption could change the entire dynamic. he ran and dr. bella ran on the idea that they would have to get after corruption. one of the first things he did was reop

iraq or syria. it is not the authorization of another ground war like afghanistan or iraq.give our armed force and coalition the continuity we need tore the next three years. >> president obama doing something that hasn't been done in more than a decade asking congress to vote on war. a war the united states of course has already been fighting against isis for more than six months. better late than never. under the president's three-page proposal the request prohibits enduring offensive ground combat operations a lot of discussion as to what that terms means and allows the military to extend its mission, quote, associated persons or forces against isis against those forces or closely related successor entity. and for months congress has called for a new authorization of this very type. they have it in front of them now but still triggering a lot of controversy. democratic congressman jim hines hooims joins us. to conduct this war without congressional authorization, why is this aumf important? >> i've been troubled like my colleagues have been and fund amountly this is a co

iraq or syria. it is not the authorization of another ground war like afghanistan or iraq.s i've said before, i'm convinced that the united states should not get dragged back into another prolonged ground war in the middle east. that's not in our national security interests and it's not necessary for us to defeat isil. local forces on the ground who now their countries best, our best position to take the ground fight to isil and that's what they are doing. at the same time, this resolution strikes the necessary balance by giving us the flexibility we need for unforeseen circumstances. >> joining us right now, senator joe manchin of west virginia. senator manchin, do you think the united states should be using military force to defeat isil? >> we're going to have to use military force. it's a matter of do we use our own combat troops on the front lines to get bogged down like we did in iraq and afghanistan. not intended to and i appreciate the president for saying he doesn't intend for that to happen but in west virginia we have a little commonsense and we know what the defi

well-known correspondent and he was a very good friend and we worked together extensively in iraq and afghanistan. called me up and he said hey, man. talks to everyone at the same tone whether it is the taliban me, his girlfriend, doesn't matter. i got a great assignment. and he said it is on the taliban in pakistan. i remember my husband sitting next to the world his eyes and said you are not going to meet the taliban. i didn't answer. dexter went. i learned not to answer. dexter went to pakistan and spent months trying to line up access and the thing about south asia and had to and culture it is tribal culture, when they invite you to meet then they will protect you with your life. so we knew if dexter was able to line this up and they invited us and we would be relatively safe. the one thing we had to worry about was in order to reach the commander he was negotiating with we had to cross through two other commanders's territory. we got the permission and the night before we were supposed to leave we got a phone call from the commander's guys and they said you are welcome to come tomorrow but t

but it is interesting that at least until the 2000 and so we got involved in iraq and afghanistan, that the army's interest was on conventional fares and that runs counter to the history of the american army, which traditionally has handled all sorts of nonconventional operations in the mid-2000 right as we were getting involved in iraq, the army conducted a big study brought a bunch of historians together and we were supposed to give papers on the armies rolls in this nonconventional affairs. the interesting thing to west was well this is the history of the army. under current top trend that has changed. the current doctrine underwent major changes under david petraeus come with much greater focus on what they called asymmetric warfare. that would argue this is themed. the commissions they find the individual issues are different the basic conditions are pretty similar, that you are trying to restore order in a very complex world, often with very few resources. >> or more information on the recent visit to corpus chri

i have been ambassador to pakistan iraq and afghanistan since 9/11. it certainly changed my life but in no way was it a morality or even lasting blow to the america we know and love. we're stronger than that. we will face down any threat. we will go after them i would like to see us in a position and i think we are by and large to do everything we can to see that we disrupt any effort to come at us here. >> well, i certainly don't want to be an alarmist but i also don't want to be the mistake of being too naive and that's -- it's very difficult to look into the future on that one. ambassador, thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> straight ahead. growing outrage about what president obama said about isis at the national prayer breakfast. our political panel is here. plus the big freeze. and we are not talking about the weather. is the obama administration freezing out israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu? that's next. and here's a quiz for you. who is the last person you would want to hire for a job? well, you won't believe hot irs just hired and this

he served as a senior official during the iraq wars and afghanistan wars.ave you with us be. the you've been in this position. the president said something that confused me. he said isil is going to lose. that's what he said point-blank. even as he says he will keep his pledge i will not submit our armed forces to fighting another war in iraq. >> they tend to be predominant by special operation forces involved in some ground combat, including targeting of isis operatives. i think what the president really is saying is he's not going to commit large numbers of conventional forces the way the previous administration did in both iraq and afghanistan. >> do you think that's a promise that can be kept or is that a, a promise you don't want to make auz because you don't know you can keep it or you don't want your enemy to know what you're going to do? >> i don't think you want to telegraph what types of troops you want to provide. you don't want to tie your hands. you have to be careful that you don't tie your hands on the time line. one thing this does do is the