Jones Demands Answers on Obama's Strategy Against ISIL | Eastern North Carolina Now

News Release:

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Yesterday, Congressman Walter B. Jones (NC-3) spoke at the House Armed Services Committee hearing with Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel on the Obama Administration's strategy for combating ISIL. The Obama Administration is asking Congress to authorize $5.6 billion to expand the U.S. military presence in Iraq and Syria, including $1.6 billion to train Iraqi military personnel. Last week it was announced that the Obama Administration plans to send 1,500 more U.S. military personnel to Iraq. In September, Congressman Jones voted against authorizing President Barack Obama to use U.S. tax payer dollars to arm and train so-called "moderate" Muslim rebels in Syria. Congress passed the authorization which expires next month.

    "It is the moral and constitutional duty of Congress to determine when there is a cause for war and to declare war," said Congressman Jones. "It is not the duty of the executive branch to declare war and put our troops in mortal danger. Every true strategy has an end point, and so far no one in the Obama Administration has been able to describe an end point in the strategy fighting ISIL. I asked Secretary of Defense Hagel to submit his opinions for the record on how this new war will end. He admitted in September that our military presence in Iraq and Syria will not be brief, and I continue to believe that this endeavor will be a total failure."

    See the video and transcript of the exchange below:

    WBJ at the HASC hearing 11

    Congressman Jones: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. It's kind of ironic; the last time that I heard before today a secretary of defense talk about military involvement in Iraq was Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. That got us into a war that was unnecessary. I know ISIL is evil. There's no question about it. They need to be taken out. But I look to some of your statements from 2002 when you were a senator and how you felt about the obligation of a member of Congress to make a decision to send a young man or woman to die.

    I also looked at your statements in 2007 when, like myself, you came out against the surge in Iraq. Now we are possibly going to be asked by the president of the United States, like we were by George Bush, to authorize an AUMF. This is nothing but an abdication of our constitutional responsibility to give any president an AUMF. We tried this past year in June when we had the NDAA bill—Adam Schiff tried to sunset out the AUMF that we gave to President Bush, which has been used by President Obama. And I do not understand how we in Congress can continue to abdicate what the constitution says is our responsibility.

    Before I get to a brief question, James Madison once said: "The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature." And I do not believe sincerely, because when—this happens to be President Obama—he wants to have another AUMF, an extension of what we have. I hope that the Congress, both parties, will look seriously at what is our responsibility, because it's not going to be but so long you have sent more and more troops to Iraq to train, many of these former Saddam Hussein loyalists, and now they're fighting with ISIL and then some are still now fighting with the other side. It's very complex. I understand that. And I agree with that. But for goodness' sake, why in the world should we make such a commitment? And we don't even have an end point to it.

    I would like for you or General Dempsey—I have great respect for both of you—to submit for the record two things very quickly: How does this new war end in your opinion? And I realize it's just your opinion, but it's very important because of who you are. What is the end state of what we're trying to accomplish? The American people—over 50% of the American people do not want our personnel in Syria or in Iraq.

    And I will be honest with you: I don't know how we can convince the American people that a nation that's financially broke—you sat right here, General Dempsey, and you're exactly right—sequestration coming your way and yet you're asking for $5 billion or $6 billion more to drop more armaments in Iraq and Syria? Where is it coming from? Please explain to the American people and to this Congress how this war is going to end someday, whether we are advisors or we're fighting. I hope to God we are not fighting and I hope we do not give the president a new AUMF. So if you get those into the committee for written form, then you won't have to answer the questions. But this, again, it looks like we're going down the same road that Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told us we had to do—we had to do—and yet we had no end point to that as well. So, thank you very much.

    Secretary Hagel: Congressman Jones, if I might respond very briefly. You very accurately described my position when I was in the United States Senate. But it's basic, as you have noted, to the responsibilities of Congress. And an AUMF comes out of Congress. The authority of the military force for a president—that authority comes from the Congress of the United States. And I, too, hope that Congress will engage in this. And I have great confidence that Congress will. They need to. They must. It is a responsibility of the Congress. So I'm right with you on that point, and I'll give you my best thoughts on your other question as well. Thank you.

    Maria Jeffrey
      Communications Director

    Congressman Walter B. Jones (NC-3)

     2333 Rayburn House Office Building
     Washington, DC 20515

     Maria.Jeffrey@mail.house.gov  •  (202) 225-3415is absolutely senility.