Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Report: Syria Accepts Chemical Weapons Plan; Top Obama Officials Before House Panel

Aired September 10, 2013 - 10:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: Second hour of NEWSROOM starts now.

Good morning, I'm Carol Costello. Thanks so much for being with me.

As the world reacts to a breakthrough plan over Syria's chemical weapons, President Obama's trip to Capitol Hill today is still on as he tries to persuade both sides of the senate to back his plan to limited military action. And while the President's plan is not an easy sell in the Senate it faces a bigger hurdle when it comes to the House especially after news that Syria has accepted a plan to put its chemical weapons under international control. In fact, House GOP leaders are wrapping up their weekly conference meeting and we expect to hear from the House Speaker John Boehner at any moment. When he speaks, of course, we'll bring his remarks to you live.

Also happening now, the House Armed Services Committee takes up President Obama's formal request to Congress for an authorization to strike Syria. On the hot seat, three men who have spent a lot of time on the hot seat this week presenting the president's case, that would be Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Joint Chiefs Chair General Martin Dempsey.

Those three men have been getting grilled since the president decided to ask Congress for approval. If anything at all happens in this hearing, of course, we'll bring it to you live as well.

Let's talk more about the diplomatic breakthrough in Syria though, as President Obama prepares for his big address to the nation tonight. A new nonviolent solution has emerged all because of this seemingly off- the-cuff comment from Secretary of State John Kerry.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KERRY, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: He could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week. Turn it over, all of it, and without delay, and allow a full and total accounting for that. But he isn't about to do it and it can't be done, obviously.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COSTELLO: Well, Mr. Secretary of State, maybe you can. This morning the war-torn nation agreed to accept Russia's plan, Syria will hand over its chemical weapons -- will hand it over to international control and possibly avoid U.S. military strikes. But voices out there like Senator John McCain are wondering if this deal is too good to be true.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: I am very skeptical, very, very skeptical. But the fact is that you can't pass up this opportunity, if it is one. But you've got to, right away determine whether it's real or not.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COSTELLO: Retired Air Force colonel and CNN military analyst, Rick Francona, live now in Washington. Welcome.

RICK FRANCONA, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Good morning.

COSTELLO: So what do you make of this? Is Syria -- I mean, do you think Syria will really turn over its chemical weapons stash to international control?

FRANCONA: Not unless they are absolutely forced to. You know, everybody welcomes this development. I mean, taking chemical weapons off -- you know, anybody is great. But I just don't see the Syrians giving up what they believe is their strategic deterrence to Israel. Now, we may see them give up some of the sarin, they'll say, OK, here's the artillery rockets. Here are some warheads and certain other things.

But, you know, he has a pretty large stockpile of a better agent called VX. That's what he calls in reserves. That's was on the scud missiles. That's what he plans to use against the Israelis if there's a large-scale war between the two countries. I just don't see him giving that up unless he's absolutely forced to.

COSTELLO: Colonel, I want you to stay with me. We're going to take our viewers and you live to the House Armed Services Committee. They're meeting right now. Let's listen for a bit.

(BEGIN LIVE FEED)

REPRESENTATIVE HOWARD MCKEON, CHAIRMAN, HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: -- very, very busy week. We appreciate your time and the effort you've made to inform us and this committee and the American public of the important work that you're engaged in. This committee has closely monitored the conflict in Syria. Throughout, this committee has focused on understanding the strategic contexts, the options, the risks of those options, as well as the cost of military action in Syria.

Today, I hope our witnesses will focus not only on the case for military action that has been made over the last two week, but also address the justifiable concerns raise by members on a bipartisan basis. This includes understanding more about likely second order effects. How a limited strike will achieve our policy goals? And the planning that's been done to respond, should Assad miscalculate, in terms of both operational and financial planning. What options, short of additional military action, do we have to respond to escalation or retaliation? And, Secretary Hagel, although you've estimated that this will cost tens of millions of dollars, in April of this year, you testified, let's start with the question of how do you pay pour military acts in Syria if we do something? Yes, I think it's clear that a supplemental would be required.

History tells us that there will likely be second or third military effects that demand further U.S. military action. Therefore it gives me great pause that we have not addressed our devastating cuts to our military due to sequestration. Even as we commit the military to another new mission, we've surged troops to Afghanistan and cut the military's budget. We've flown missions over Libya and cut the military's budget.

We're pivoting to the Asia Pacific and cutting the military's budget. All told, these cuts total an outstanding $1.2 trillion. And now we're considering strikes on Syria, while the military's budget continues to be cut. I share President Obama's concern about Assad's vicious use of chemical weapons on his people. I'm also deeply concerned about the United States' standing in the region.

When the president drew his red line, he put America's cards on the table. A leader either enforces his red lines or he becomes irrelevant. However, I'm equally concerned about the condition of a military that's been chewed up from budget cuts and years from fighting and the lack of certainty. This chief and the chiefs that serve with him have not had a budget in their term in this office. They do not know, really, what they have to spend at the end of this month, going into next year.

It's not a way to run an organization. We cannot keep asking the military to perform dangerous mission after mission, with multiple rounds of defense cuts, including sequestration happening over their heads. Through decisiveness, clarity of purpose and leadership, the president has the power to allay many of these concerns. I look forward to answers to these questions and to your testimony here today. Mr. Smith.

REPRESENTATIVE ADAM SMITH (D), WASHINGTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for this hearing. We thank our witnesses, Secretary Kerry, Secretary Hagel and General Dempsey for being here and for your outstanding leadership during this crisis and on the many, many other difficult issues that we face as a country.

I think there's no question at this point that Assad used chemical weapons in Syria. The evidence, intelligence case that's been made, it's been overwhelming in the hearings that I have been to. This, of course, is on the heels of a civil war in which Assad has killed somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 of his own civilians, which is a series of abhorrent acts in and of themselves.

The challenge for us and this panel and the people who are testifying today is how best to respond to all this. How best to hold President Assad accountable for all of this? There is no question, and I agree completely that trying control the proliferation of chemical weapons on this goal that we must have as a nation. We must go forward. But can a one-time, limited military strike accomplish that?

And I think what our committee wants to hear today is how is that going to happen? How will this one-time strike be enough to hold Assad accountable while not creating a chaos or risk that these very dangerous weapons would frankly fall into more dangerous hands given the presence of al Qaeda and other groups in Syria that would not be friendly to us and very dangerous.

How do you strike that balance between holding Assad accountable? And not creating a worse situation? It's very, very difficult. We're going to have serious questions today as to how that is accomplished. And we look forward to hearing answers from our witnesses to help us better understand this problem.

Also, we are very interested in how serious the Russian proposal is. If you think that as a worthy goal in terms of holding Assad accountable in eliminating the chemical weapons, is that something that can happen? Now, we definitely want to hear how -- how you think that plays into our decisions going forward.

Lastly, I just want to agree with the chairman on sequestration. It is an enormous problem. Certainly, it adds a layer of complication for every conflict that comes up, including the one in Syria. Personally, I would end sequestration tomorrow. You know, we can talk about how to get the budget deficit under control long term, revenues, spending and all of that. One thing we know, sequestration is really devastating our military caution problems in our budget and other portions.

It was never meant to be implemented. It was meant to be a forcing mechanism, an intention that has clearly failed. And I think we should just eliminate it and then we can get back to a discussion of how to control the deficit without torturing the discretionary budget on a day in and day out basis. So if this Syrian crisis prompts a more serious discussion of that that will be a tiny positive in what is otherwise a very, very dangerous situation.

I look forward to that testimony and to the questions from our committee. Again, I thank this distinguished panel for being here today.

MCKEON: Thank you, Secretary Kerry.

KERRY: Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith and distinguished members of the committee, a privilege to be here this morning, with Secretary Hagel and General Dempsey. And we are, all of us, all three of us, very much looking forward to a conversation with you about this complicated, challenging, but critical issue that our country faces. And we don't come to you lightly.

I think Secretary Hagel and I particularly come here with an enormous amount of respect for this process, for what each of you go through at home, and the challenges you face with constituents and the complexity of this particular issue. So, this is good. It's good that we're here and we look forward to the conversation. And as we convene at this hearing, it is no exaggeration at all to say to you, that the world is watching, and they're watching not just to see what we decide, they're watching to see how we decide it. And whether or not we have the ability at this critical time, when so much is on the line, and so many parts of the world as challenges to governments were at large, it's important that we show the world that we actually do the ability to hopefully speak with one voice.

And we believe that that can make a difference. Needless to say, this is one of the most important decisions that any member of Congress makes during the course of their service. And we all want to make sure we leave plenty of time here for a discussion. Obviously, this is a very large committee and so we'll try to summarize in these comments and give the opportunity for the Q and A.

But I just want to open with a few comments about questions I'm hearing from many of your colleagues and, obviously, from the American people, and what we read in the news. First, people ask me and they ask you, I know, why we are choosing to have a debate on Syria at a time when there's so much that we need to be doing here at home, and we all know what that agenda is.

Let me assure you, the president of the United States didn't wake up one day and just kind of flippantly say, let's go take military action in Syria. He didn't choose this. We didn't choose this. We're here today because Bashar Al-Assad, a dictator who has chosen to meet the request for reform in his country with bullets and bombs and napalm and gas because he made a decision to use the world's most heinous weapons to murder more than -- in one instance, 1,400 people including more than 400 children.

He and his regime made a choice. And President Obama believes and all of us at this table believe that we have no choice but to respond. Now, to those who doubt whether Assad's actions have to have consequences. Remember, that our inaction absolutely is guaranteed to bring worse consequences. You, every one of you here, we, all of us, America, will face this.

If not today, somewhere down the line, when the permissiveness of not acting now gives Assad license to go do what he wants and threaten Israel, threaten Jordan, threaten Lebanon, create greater instability in a region already racked by instability where stability is one of the greatest priorities of our foreign policy and of our national security interest.

That brings me to the second question that I've heard lately, which is sort of what's really at stake here? You know, does this really affect us? I met early today with Steve Shabet and had a good conversation. I asked him what are you hearing? I know what you're all hearing. The instant reaction of a lot of Americans anywhere in our country is whoa, we don't want to go to war again. We don't want to go to Iraq. We don't want to go to Afghanistan.

We've seen how those turned out. I get it and I'll speak to that in a minute. But I want to make it clear at the outset as each of us at this table want to make it clear what Assad has done directly affects America's security, America's security. We have a huge national interest in containing all weapons of mass destruction and the use of gas is a weapon of mass destruction.

Allowing those weapons to be used with impunity would be an enormous chink in our armor that we have built up over years, against proliferation. Think about it. Our own troops benefit from that prohibition against chemical weapons. I mentioned yesterday, in the briefing, many of you were there, and some of you, I notice from declarations, otherwise, I know many of you have served in the military, some of you still in the reserves.

And you know the training that we used to go through when you're, you know, learning. And I went to chemical/nuclear/biological warfare school. I remember going in the room with a gas mask. They make you take it off and they see how long you can do it, and it isn't for long. Those weapons have been outlawed and our troops in all of the wars we fought since World War I have never been subjected to it because we stand up to that prohibition.

There's a reason for that. If we don't answer Assad today, we will irreparably damage a century-old standard that has protected troops in war. So to every one of your constituents if they were to say to you, why did you go through this, even though we said we don't want to go to war, because you want to protect American troops, because you want to protect America's prohibition, and the world's prohibition against these weapons.

The stability of this region is also in our direct security interest. Our allies, our friends in Israel, Jordan and Turkey, are all of them just a strong wind away from being injured themselves or potentially, from the purposeful attack. Failure to act now will make this already volatile neighborhood even more combustible and it will almost certainly pave the way for a more serious challenge in the future. And you can just ask our friends in Israel or elsewhere.

In Israel, they can't get enough gas masks and there's a reason that the prime minister has said this matters. This decision matters. It's called Iran. Iran looms out there with its potential -- with its nuclear program. And the challenge we have been facing. And that moment is coming closer in terms of a decision. They're watching what we do here. They're watching what you do and whether or not this means something.

If we choose not to act, we will be sending a message to Iran of American ambivalence, American weakness. It will raise a question. I've heard this question -- Secretary of State, as I meet with people, and they ask sort of about our long-term interests and the future with respect to Iran. They've asked me many times did you really mean what you say? Are you really going to do something?

They ask whether or not the United States is committed. And they ask us also if the president cuts a deal, will the Congress back it up? Can he deliver? This is all integrated. I have no doubt. I talked to Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday, Israel does not want to be in the middle of this, but we know that their security is at risk, and the region is at risk. I also want to remind you, you have already spoken to this. Your word is on the line too. You passed the Syria accountability act, and that act clearly states that Syria's chemical weapons threaten the security of the Middle East. That's in plain writing. It's in the act. You voted for it. We already decided these chemical weapons are important to the security of our nation.

I quote, "The national security interests of the United States are at risk with chemical weapons of Syria." The fourth question I've been asked, a lot of times, is why diplomacy isn't changing this dynamic. Isn't there some alternative that could avoid this? And I want to emphasize on behalf of President Obama, President Obama's first priority throughout his process has been and is diplomacy.

Diplomacy is our first resort and we have brought this issue to the United Nations Security Council on many occasions. We have sent direct messages to Syria, and we've had Syria's allies bring them direct messages don't do this. Don't use these weapons, all to date to no avail and in the last three years Russia and China have vetoed three Security Council resolutions condemning the regime for inciting violence or resolutions that simply promote a political solution to the dialogue, to the conflict.

Russia has even blocked press releases, press releases, that do nothing more than express humanitarian concern of what is happening in Syria or merely condemn the using of chemical weapons, not even assigning blame, they have blocked them. We've brought these concerns to the United Nations making the case to the members of the Security Council, protecting civilians, prohibiting the use of chemical weapons and promoting peace and security are in our shared interests.

And those general statements have been blocked. That is why the president directed me to work with the Russians in the regions players to get a Geneva 2 peace negotiation under way. And the end to the conflict in Syria, we all emphasize today, is a political solution. None of us are coming in today asking for long-term military -- I mean, some people think we ought to be. But we don't believe there is any military solution to what is happening in Syria.

But make no mistake, no political solution will ever be achievable, as long as Assad believes he can just gas his way out of this predicament. And we are without question building the coalition of support for this now. Thirty one countries have signed on to the G-20 statement, which is a powerful one, endorsing the United States' efforts to hold Assad accountable for what he is doing.

Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and France and many others are committed to joining with us in any action. We're now in double digits with respect to countries that are prepared to actually take action, should they be needed, were they capable of it. More than 25 -- I mentioned 31 nations signing on to the G12 statement.

But our diplomatic hand, my former colleagues, our diplomatic hand only becomes stronger if other countries know that America is speaking with a strong voice here, with one voice and if we're stronger, as a united nation around this purpose. In order to speak with that voice, we need you, the Congress. That's what the president did.

Many of you said, please bring this to Congress. The president has done that and he's bringing it to congress with confidence that the Congress will want to join in an effort in order to uphold the world of the United States of America, not just a president. But the United States of America with respect to these weapons of mass destruction.

Now, I want to be crystal clear about something else. Some people want to do more in Syria. Some people are leery about doing anything at all. But one goal we ought to all be able to agree on is that chemical weapons cannot be under the control of a man so craven that he has repeatedly used those chemical weapons against his fellow Syrians with horrific results that all of us have been able to see.

Yesterday, we challenged the regime to turn them over to the secure control of the international community so that they could be destroyed. And that, of course, would be the ultimate way to degrade and deter Assad's arsenal. And it is the ideal weapon -- ideal way to take this weapon away from him. Assad's chief benefactor, the Russians, have responded by saying that they would come up with a proposal to do exactly that.

And we have made it clear to them. I have some several conversations with Foreign Minister Lavrov that this cannot be a process of delay. This cannot be a process of avoidance. It has to be real. It has to be measurable, tangible. And it is exceedingly difficult I want everybody here to know, to fulfill those conditions, but we're waiting for that proposal. But we're not waiting for long.

President Obama will take a hard look at it, but it has to be swift. It has to be real. It has to be verifiable. It cannot be a delaying tactic. And if the United Nations Security Council seeks to be the vehicle to make it happen, that cannot be allowed to simply become a debating society. Now many countries and many of you in the Congress, from those who wanted military action to those who were skeptical of military action, want to see if this idea could become a reality.

But make no mistake -- make no mistake, about why this idea has any potential legs at all. And why it is that the Russians have reached out to the Syrians and why the Syrians have initially suggested they might be interested. A lot of people say that nothing focuses the mind like the prospect of a hanging. Well, it's the credible threat of force that has been on the table for these last weeks that has, for the first time, brought this regime to even acknowledge that they have a chemical weapons arsenal.

And it is the threat of this force, and our determination to hold Assad accountable that has motivated others to even talk about a real and credible international action that might have an impact. So how do you maintain that pressure? We have to continue to show Syria, Russia and the world that we are not going to fall for stalling tactics.

If the challenge we laid down is going to have the potential to become a real proposal, it is only because of the threat of force that we are discussing today, and that threat is more compelling if Congress stands with the commander in chief. Finally, let me just correct a common misperception. In my conversation with Steve Shabet earlier today, he mentioned this, I've heard it. I've talked with many of you who hear it. The instant reaction of a lot of Americans, and I'm completely sympathetic to it, I understand it.

I know where it comes from. I only stopped sitting where you sit a few months ago. I know exactly what the feelings are. People don't want another Iraq. None of us do, we don't want an Afghanistan. But, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, we can't make this decision based sole on the budget. We can make this decision based solely on our wishes. On our feeling that we know we've been through the wringer for a while.

We're the United States of America, and people look to us. They look to us for the meaning of our word and they look to us for our values in fact being followed up by the imprint of action where that is necessary. We are not talking about America going to war. President Obama is not asking for a declaration of war. We are not going to war.

There will be no American boots on the ground. Let me repeat, no American boots will be on the ground. What we're talking about is a targeted, limited, but consequential action that will reinforce the prohibition against chemical weapons. And General Dempsey and Secretary Hagel will tell you how we can achieve that and their confidence in their ability to achieve that. We're talking about an action that will degrade Assad's capacity to use these weapons.

And to ensure that they do not proliferate, and with this authorization, the president is asking for the power to make sure that the United States of America means what we say. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking member, and members of this committee, I can say to you with absolute confidence, the risk of not acting is much greater than the risk of acting.

If we fail to act, Assad will believe that he has license to gas his own people again, and that license will turn prohibited weapons into tactical weapons. General Dempsey can tell you about this. It would make -- it would take an exception, a purposeful exception that has been in force since 1925 and make it the rule today.

It would undermine our standing, degrade America's credibility and erode our strength in the world. In a world of terrorists and extremists, we would choose to ignore those risks at our peril. We cannot afford to have chemical weapons transformed into the new, convenient weapon, the IED, the car bomb, the weapon of everyday use in this world. Neither our country, nor our conscience can bear the cost of inaction. That's why we've come before you at the instruction of the president to ask you to join us in this effort. Secretary Hagel.

CHUCK HAGEL, DEFENSE SECRETARY: Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Smith and members of the committee, the Department of Defense has the responsibility to protect the national security interest of the United States, and General Dempsey and I take that responsibility very seriously.