But even without an Iraq or Afghanistan-sized commitment still can commit thousands of troops for a long period of time.

If, in fact, your campaign as presently designed needs to morph, change, to the realities of what is happening, do you believe the authorization will allow you to do that?

I just hope you can go back to the men and women who served this country with great sacrifice, and in that spirit we are united.

I think many of us are surprised that that authorization could be used today against ISIS in Syria.

The President already has statutory authority to act against ISIL, but a clear and formal expression of this Congress' backing at this moment in time would dispel doubt.

the AUMF that was passed out last year that Democrats put together has no geographic limitations

we do not know of a single Democrat in Congress--in the United States Senate anyway--that supports that authorization for the use of military force.

We must learn from the tragic foreign policy mistakes of the past. We cannot afford to make them again.

What it did not do, and what I think Democrats are not willing to do, is to give this or any other President an open-ended authorization for war, a blank check.

every single thing that the United States is doing right now in Iraq, things that I support, I might add, to deal with ISIS, every single thing that we are doing is really inuring to the benefit of Iran.

to support the President, this and any future one, to degrade and defeat ISIL, and at the same time not to provide the open-endedness...

Finally, Secretary Carter, over the weekend, Boko Haram in Nigeria declared its allegiance to ISIL.