Under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against the Islamic State (ISIL) proposed by the White House, US soldiers could be deployed to Africa to open up a new front against Boko Haram, according to the Secretary of Defense.

“[The AUMF] can be interpreted but has not yet been interpreted to cover other groups like Boko Haram,” said Ashton Carter in response to a question from Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Tuesday.

Sen. Murphy noted that the AUMF’s definition of “associated forces,” includes organizations that have pledged allegiance to the Islamic State deemed to be engaging in hostilities against the US and its allies. That would encompass African nations in which Boko Haram is operating, Murphy said.

“I think you’re reading it right,” Carter responded.

He added that the US military currently has the authority to strike Boko Haram under the 2001 AUMF as well—an authority that many lawmakers believe only targets individuals, organizations, and government that helped plot and execute the 9/11 attacks.

Carter admitted that it seems that many of these war authorities are interpreted too broadly, but insisted it’s important to “err on the side of flexibility.”

Some of those actually tasked with overseeing the drafting of the mandate, however, have had other opinions about the benefits of “flexibility.”

“I remain as frustrated as many of my colleagues with this question over these definition,” Sen. Murphy said Wednesday morning.

“I think the problem is in part that every different member of the administration we talk to does seem to have a slightly different interpretation of what these words mean,” he added, lamenting that the “lack of consistency has hampered efforts [of Congress and the administration] to get on the same page together.”

This isn’t the first time that the Senator from Connecticut has pressed for a clearer definition from administration officials. The Sentinel reported last month on how he attempted at a hearing to exact a more narrow definition of “enduring offensive ground combat operations” from Secretary of State John Kerry. Kerry replied that the AUMF uses that language to assuage fears that the administration intends to launch full-scale wars, like those launched by the Bush Administration in Iraq and Afghanistan.

During Wednesday’s hearing, where Kerry and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey also testified, Murphy again noted that his dissatisfaction with the administration’s definition of the term.

“If we resort to just an understanding that these words mean something less than what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, then that really is no limitation at all,” he told the witnesses.

The same can be said of the lack of geographic limitations in either the proposed AUMF or the 2001 AUMF, which, according to Carter, is one reason why a war authority aimed at belligerents in Syria and Iraq could extend to armed groups in Africa.

At least one lawmaker took exception to this interpretation.

“People worry about the danger of being too confiding, we’re not anywhere close to that,” Sen. Rand Paul (Ken.) told Carter, with respect to his “err on the side of flexibility” appeal.

“The AUMF in 2001 says that nations or organization that planned, authorized, committed or aided in the attacks on 9/11 are the target – I don’t read Boko Haram into that,” Sen. Paul added.

He went on to warn that if the 2001 authorization can be applied to Boko Haram, then he is “very concerned about voting for this [AUMF] as it’s worded.”

“That’s such a stretch it’s meaningless,” Paul said.