MSNBC "Rachel Maddow Show"- Transcript: War Against ISIL

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Senator Murphy, it`s nice to see you. Thank you for being here.

SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D), CONNECTICUT: Thanks for having me.

MADDOW: So, you have been outspoken for the need for basically a
national progressive approach to foreign policy, and to national security.
You`ve argued that the hawks essentially so define our national security
range of debate, that progressives, people on the left side of the
spectrum, ought to speak out more firmly on these issues and decide more,
essentially who the progressives are on this issue.

Is this part of that? Does this authorization for the use of military
force fit into your argument on that?

MURPHY: Well, I think this debate is the defining moment for
progressives. I would argue it`s even worse than what you laid out. The
fact is, the only interesting foreign policy debate that`s been happening
in Congress over the past five years, has been between John McCain and his
interventionalists, and Rand Paul and his isolationists.

And there are a lot of us who are progressives, but are also
internationalists. We want America to play a role in the world. We just
want to make sure that we learn from the mistakes of the last ten years.

And the biggest mistake was thinking that the massive deployment of
American ground troops inside the Middle East was going to cure a problem
that was really a local, political and economic problem. We created more
terrorists than we actually killed during the ten years that we were in
Iraq.

So, this is a defining moment, which is why many of us want to proceed
with this authorization. But make sure that it limits us in a way that
makes sure that we don`t repeat the mistakes of the past, i.e., that we
don`t put another 100,000 ground troops inside the Middle East to fight
ISIS, which won`t make this country any safer. That`s going to be a
defining moment for progressives who want to be present on foreign policy
debates, and want to shape some ground for ourselves having learned the
lessons of the last decade.

MADDOW: What do you think about the specific language that the
president included in this draft today, that he says is meant to preclude
any authorization of a large-scale ground force of the kind you`re
describing? What do you think about his language?

MURPHY: Well, to start with, I think it`s remarkable that the
president is submitting authorization language to Congress that actually
binds him, that restricts his powers. That is probably unprecedented in
the post-World War II era. That being said, I think we`re going to have to
finesse the language that he`s given us.

He has two limiting factors in his draft. He said the troops can`t be
enduring, and that they can only be defensive. Well, there`s absolutely no
precedence built up around those two words. Enduring might be a year, but
to John McCain, it might be 10 years. The Department of Defense is by its
nature offensive in its operations.

So, these are terms that we`re going to have to work with.

But I think the president has made it clear, he`s not going to put
major combat troops on the ground. So, we just want to make sure we have
an authorization that holds true to the promise he`s made to the American
people.

MADDOW: This authorization language proposed by the president today
would sunset the Iraq war authorization from back in 2002. It would leave
the post-9/11 authorization in place which has been used to justify all
sorts of things that have nothing to do with 9/11, all sorts of fight that
have nothing to do with al Qaeda over the years.

(A), that will be kept in place. Is that on the table in terms of the
debate? And is the proposal from the president duplicating some of the
problems from that 2001 authorization by defining not just ISIS, but ISIS
and associated persons or forces? Is this another kind of authorization
that could essentially justify wars all over the place?

MURPHY: Yes, this is a huge issue. We`ve got to make sure we get the
definition of the enemy right here, because what we`re seeing is that all
sorts of terrorist groups in other parts of the world are now flying the
ISIS banner. And if by simple affiliation with ISIS, the United States is
now at war with those organizations in those countries, then it opens up a
Pandora`s box. Not for this president, because I trust him, but for the
next president who`s going to get the authorization for at least a year.
So, we`ve got to get that definition right.

And here`s what we can do with the 2001 AUMF, Rachel. We can sunset
it after three years, just like we can sunset this authorization. So,
maybe we can`t figure it out right now, what should replace the 2001
authorization, but we can at least put a sunset on it so it forces us to
come back in one, two, or three years to get that authorization right for
the first and final time hopefully.

MADDOW: Senator Chris Murphy, speaking very clearly about this, but
also really broadening the discussion. I think energizing a lot of people
who usually felt alienated from this as a subject. Thanks for being here
tonight. It`s always a pleasure to have you here, sir. Thank you.

MURPHY: Great. Thanks, Rachel.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source