Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Israel and Hamas Agree to 72-Hour Cease-fire; New Series of U.S. Air Strikes in Iraq; America's Next Step in Iraq; ISIS Growing More Powerful in Iraq; U.S. Dragged Back into Iraq War?

Aired August 10, 2014 - 17:00   ET

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

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: You are in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington and I want to welcome our international viewers as well this hour.

Two enormous stories we're watching now, both in the Middle East. Here you see live looks at Jerusalem and Gaza. A cease-fire beginning right now, this minute, in Israel and Gaza. The question: will it hold? It is temporary but gives Hamas and Israel at least some time to find a more permanent end to this conflict.

And in Iraq, a battle that may just be beginning. The fight against ISIS fought from the air. But some military experts warn that American soldiers on the ground could be just a matter of time.

First, starting right now, Israel and Hamas both agree to stop shooting at each other for at least 72 hours, three days. It is a temporary peace deal brokered once again Egypt to allow negotiators from both sides to come again. An agreement came after two days after rocket fire from Gaza and air strikes from Israel again.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I guess they got that house.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: That is CNN's Martin Savidge hitting the floor just a short while ago in Gaza city. And watch. It's about to happen again.

(VIDEO CLIP PLAYING)

SCIUTTO: Too, too close for comfort in Gaza. Thankfully Martin and his reporting crew were not hurt. But it certainly shows the danger there, you can see the pictures again. The question now is will the latest cease-fire that just began this very moment hold even for 72 hours. The last time the two sides agreed to stop fighting, it certainly didn't last. And as of this weekend more than 1,900 people in Gaza have reportedly been killed. U.N. believes a huge majority of them, perhaps some 75 percent, are civilians.

And now to Iraq with two major developments there. A new series of U.S. air strikes today demolished five ISIS targets in northern Iraq. Plus a dramatic rescue at Mt. Sinjar may signal at least some vulnerability for ISIS. Twenty thousand desperate Yazidis once trapped on that mountaintop are now safe.

I want to show you some brand-new photos of some of those rescued men, women, and children. Here they are exhausted clearly after today's long dangerous escape. Kurdish forces overcame ISIS militants near the mountains' base. They loaded 20,000 Yazidis into trucks, and set off on a potentially dangerous journey trying to simply avoid brutal ISIS militants. They escape route highlighted in red on this map. British forces driving the refugees into Syria, a town called Hasaka (ph). They dragged them along the Syrian-Iraqi border then to Dohuk inside Iraq's Kurdish region.

Up to 30,000 Yazidis, we should say, are still stranded on Mt. Sinjar. I want to go to our correspondent Anna Coren. She is in Erbil, Iraq.

Anna, it leaves some positive progress today, some vulnerability by ISIS shown here, one to the renewed offensive by the Kurdish forces on the ground. But also certainly backed up by these U.S. air strikes. Do you believe from your perspective that the U.S. air strikes made the difference here?

ANNA COREN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Without a doubt, Jim. If the U.S. weren't helping out with those air strikes, Kurdish forces wouldn't be able to go in and reclaim two of the towns they did just 20 miles from here in Erbil. Not only is it boosting confidence and morale, but they're now making some serious inroads.

I spoke to the chief of staff, the Kurdish president, and he said that they needed those air strikes to continue. They have the men on the ground. They have the will to take on those ISIS militants, but they need that support and that will come from more U.S. air strikes.

I must add, though, we are hearing from our sources here that ISIS militants did claim one town nearby. So while those U.S. air strikes are certainly making an impact and hoping those regroup and push back to ISIS from certain areas, militants are also making gains as well.

Obviously, though, those air strikes with those fighter jets as well as the drone, they took out five targets over a period of five hours. So it is hoped by certainly people here in Erbil and all across Kurdistan that those U.S. air strikes will continue today if not weeks. And as we heard from President Obama, he believes this might be sold for months.

SCIUTTO: What is the mood in Erbil? Because it was only a few days ago before the U.S. air strikes started. That U.S. officials were gravely concerned that Erbil long thought to be really, really an oasis of safety and security in Iraq was vulnerable, including the Americans that are stationed there, vulnerable ties as advances has that lifted some of the stress inside Erbil. Do people feel now that Kurdish forces will hold?

COREN: Yes, look. I mean the U.S. state department, they have removed personnel from the consulate in Erbil. But as we know, that's pretty much protocol in a time like this.

As far as the people go here in Erbil, they feel that since the United States has gotten involved, that the situation is definitely changing and that is will not be able to attack Erbil. Obviously, they're very much aware that the ISIS militants have changed their plan.

Initially, though, heading toward Baghdad and in the last week or so, they decided to turn their attention toward Kurdistan. And speaking to this press secretary for the president today, he said the reason being is because Kurdistan is rich, because it has oil, it has gas, and if the is militants were to get their hands on those resources, then, you know, they would definitely be a force to be reckoned with.

It was interesting. He described them as not just an army but a state. That is what the rebel -- I should say the Kurdish forces are taking on. And they've also called not just for air strikes but also for weapons. They say that they need weapons because at the moment they're dealing with militants that are much better resourced, obviously has the equipment that is originally U.S. equipment that was given to Iraqis that was seized by the ISIS militants. So they're saying they need better weapons to fight ISIS, Jim.

SCIUTTO: That it's cold comfort to imagine that Kurdistan really is the only safe place in northern Iraq. Some 40 percent of the country influenced or controlled by ISIS now.

Anna Coren very close to it there for CNN now in Erbil. Thanks very much and please stay safe.

On the run facing almost certain death. This is the reality for tens of thousands of Iraqis who are being changed by these barbaric ISIS rebels. Following urgent calls from United Nations, the U.S. is taking out ISIS forces from the air. Britain and France are also offering to join the U.S. to air drop food and water but the U.N. is saying that's not enough.

Bill Richardson, he is a U.S. ambassador to the U.N. He joins us now.

Bill, very complex, dangerous situation in Iraq. First to what of the U.N., what is it asking its members exactly here? Is it just asking for humanitarian help or are they asking for more countries to push back against ISIS to offer military support like the U.S. is undertaking now?

BILL RICHARDSON, FORMER NEW MEXICO GOVERNOR: Well, they're asking a lot right now because the U.N. can't play a crucial role. You mentioned that they can engage in humanitarian relief and medical supplies. Hopefully, eventually, in a political solution if there is one involving the three regions of Iraq. But what they would like to see obviously is support for the American position.

Obviously, the air strikes from your report has worked at least temporarily to prevent a potential genocide, to arm the -- to find a way to help our friends, the Kurds, to push back is. But still ISIS is very powerful. They control eastern Syria, they control a large part, as you said, 40 percent of the region. So this is going to be a long effort.

But I think the U.N. can play several roles. Special envoy, peacekeeping by the U.N. I wouldn't go to the security council because I don't think the Russians would help us. They might beat out of spite over Ukraine. But here's a role where the U.N. can get the permanent members, France, UK, possibly China, the United States in a coalition effort to contain ISIS and to help the Kurds.

SCIUTTO: But you've been in administrations before. Clearly, this is a president in President Obama who was reluctant to go back into military action in Iraq. You know, he pulled the troops out. That was one of his goals. Something he ran on. Now, you look at the effect air strikes are having. You have the president saying months not weeks and clearly Iraqi forces at this point not up to pushing ISIS back. Is the U.S. -- in simple terms, is the U.S. being drawn back to war in Iraq?

RICHARDSON: Well, it's moving in that direction. But I think the president has been very clear and careful. It's for humanitarian reasons that we're engaged, that we are there to help that section of the Kurdish Republic, that we're using limited air strikes and training, that we don't have boots on the ground. But eventually a decision is going to have to be made. The Kurds are going to want weapons and ammunition.

I think the decision is going to have to be made whether we do that. And the Kurds are our friends. They're a democracy, they are pro- west, they've been with us all along. But I think the big problem here, Jim, is Maliki. Is Maliki going to be part of a solution that involves splitting up his government that does not include a broad coalition of Kurds, Sunni, Shia. Is he going to have the political will to share power or to leave power and that's where I have my doubts. This is why I'd like to see a long-term solution. Not just to contain is, but a long-term solution to push Maliki out.

SCIUTTO: There are Iraq watcher, former officials I've spoken to and even current lawmakers who say it's too late to be talking about political progress in Iraq when you have an Al Qaeda -- in fact, worse than Al Qaeda, right? It is the group expelled from Al Qaeda, ISIS. Worse than Al Qaeda group controlling a large piece of territory in the middle of the Middle East without getting pushed back and threatening to send foreign fighters home to Europe and the U.S. to carry out attacks, that it's too late to talk about political process that you need an army.

Senator Dianne Feinstein said this. You need an army to fight an army. Isn't it too late to talk politics? Doesn't there need to be a coordinated effort to push back and gain from ISIS?

RICHARDSON: Well, there has to be a political solution and a military effort. And I think those that say it's too late. We need boots on the ground, military solution, that's not going to work unless Maliki shares power, and he's not willing to do that.

ISIS right now controls 40 percent of the country. They're strong. They're weaponized. What we need to do is short term contain them. Contain them in the short run until a political solution is achieved. Otherwise, Jim, we're going to have a situation where no matter how many weapons you put in, how much U.S. assistance is comes in, unless there's a sharing of power in Iraq and perhaps what will spur things is this Kurdish election if they have this constitutional amendment that allows them to become a separate entity, that's going to start a domino effect. And you're going to have a political solution that may be inevitable, and that's good.

SCIUTTO: So political solution, military progress. Both necessary here.

Thanks very much, Ambassador Richardson, we appreciate it as always having you on.

Just ahead, could the Russians try to disguise a military operation in Ukraine as a peace-keeping mission. U.S. is warning Moscow, don't even think about it.

And meantime, the investigation of Malaysian flight 17 is caught right in the middle.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: As the humanitarian crisis grows, secretary of state John Kerry is sending a strong warning to his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov. Do not invade under the guise of peacekeeping. Meanwhile, in the heated Donetsk, district of eastern Ukraine, the self-proclaimed leader of pro-Russian forces there say they would consider humanitarian cease-fire to bring aid to civilians. But they are not ready to surrender their territory and would, quote, "fight to the death."

Joining me to discuss former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. and former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, great to have you back and Steven Cook, senior fellow from Middle Eastern studies at council of foreign relations.

Governor, if I could start with you, in a separate call, vice president Biden echoing Kerry's warnings. This essentially has been the administration's strategy. Strong warnings delivered over diplomatic channels plus a gradual ratcheting up of economic sanctions. Do you think that's enough and do you think that policy is succeeding?

RICHARDSON: Well, there's a slight glimmer of hope but it's coming from the Ukrainian government and the Ukrainian military that has made some military advances in the Donetsk region. I think the news is that the Russians, the separatists in calling for a cease-fire, it is a little bit of a retreat because they are suffering some reverses.

Now, this is no permanent. I think the objective has to be to keep any kind of peace keeping mission from coming in because the Russians, what you don't want in a peacekeeping mission is a bunch of troops that later will invade. So what I see is positive movement. Possibly, President Putin, you know, the Ukrainians called his bluff. The Russians at one point threatened action, they didn't do it. And now I think the effect -- in fact, very strong sanctions on Putin particularly by the Europeans and the Germans may be having an effect. So we may be seeing a light at the end of the tunnel, but you never know with Putin. He might say I'm going in.

SCIUTTO: You know, Steven Cook, when I speak with U.S. intelligence officials they express that very concern, that they see an increase in the capability of the Russian forces along the Ukrainian border and they say in fact, the fact is we won't know he's going in until he goes in. Do you see this as a serious concern that Russia will use this pretext of a humanitarian crisis in eastern Ukraine as a an excuse to send more forces across the border?

STEVEN COOK, SENIOR FELLOW, MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES AT COUNCIL OF FOREIGN RELATIONS: Of course, as an observer of these kinds of things, you have to recognize, in fact, that this is the kind of thing that the Russians have done in the past. They have called out and said we're protecting the Russia minority in Crimea and moved in there as well. So of course, it's something to be concerned about.

SCIUTTO: Ambassador -- and I want to call you ambassador and governor because you've been both. But ambassador Richardson, when you look at this situation there, I keep reminding our viewers that this is in Europe. You know, this is not some distant land. Yes, it's a former soviet republic, but Ukraine is in Europe. How much of a change is this and a fundamental change in the relationship between the U.S. and the west and Russia. Are we -- and people have asked this question before. But are we going back to cold war hostility here?

RICHARDSON: Well, yes. The relationship with Russia and the United States, it's not good. It's not good in Syria, in Iran, on arms control. Now Ukraine, economic sanctions. I wouldn't call it a cold war. I would call it a significant increase in tensions among two super powers with U.S. being the super power.

But I think what is a test here is not just U.S.-Russia, but Europe and Russia. And Europe, I believe, is key here because if there's any leverage on Russia, economic, commercial, natural, gas, and by the way, the Russians have reverse leverage, I think you are seeing a significant increase in tensions, and the economic, political and military sphere between Russia and Europe which is equally important.

The practical effect, Jim, is that Russia, I think, right now, may have reached the potential end game in that they've had some successes. Putin's at 90 percent, the next Crimea. But is the international cost going to be too high and it possibly is? I think this is showing in Putin's recent actions or non-actions in Ukraine.

SCIUTTO: And some retaliatory economic sanctions as well on the west.

Ambassador Richardson, thanks you very much for staying. Steven Cook, please stay with me. We're going to bring you back after this break.

Is the dream of a democratic Iraq dead and has the hope of an Arab spring collapsed into a bitter Arab winter? We'll look at the crisis in Gaza and a fighting in Iraq means for people across the troubled region.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) SCIUTTO: Back in 2003 when the U.S. went to war in Iraq, one of the justifications given by the Bush administration was to bring democracy to the Middle East. There are critics who say opposing it from the outside wasn't practical and many countries weren't ready for it. And then came the Arab spring. You remember Tahrir Square in Cairo filled with energized Egyptian demanding new leadership, reform, democracy.

Two years ago, parts of the middle East seemed on a verge of an amazing transformation shaking off dictators who had ruled for decades. From Tunisia, to Libya, Syria, in fact, change was in the air.

But today, has the dream of Arab spring collapsed? Possibly triggering a drastic redrawing of the region's some of the instability that we're seeing today.

Joining me once again is Steven Cook. He's a senior fellow on Middle eastern studies that the council of foreign relations.

Steven, I was admittedly one of the people caught to some degree in that euphoria. I was in Tahrir Square when Mubarak fell. You remember when the Arab protester was named time person of the year. There was great excitement then. When we look now some three or more than three years later, is it safe to say that dream was unreal unrealistic?

COOK: Well, in ways that is a fair assessment. That does seem like a very long time ago that you're in Tahrir Square witnessing the fall of Hosni Mubarak with rule the Egypt for 30 years.

Across the region there had been obvious problems in making that transition from those exhilarating moments of bringing dictators down to one of genuine transitions to a democratic political system.

In Egypt, for example, revolutionaries had to contend with the institutions of the old order and the forces of the old order, counterrevolutionary groups who were determined to undermine it. And to this point it seems they have been successful. In Libya after Gadhafi fell, there was really nothing left. There was no political system. There was no governmental system. And the country has reverted to a kind of tribal differences.

Libya was actually three different countries really long before it became Libya. Tunisia is one of those hopeful placed. But even there, there are tremendous challenges -- economic challenges, there is a political agreement at the moment, but who knows whether that is a lasting one. And, of course, you have the terrible situation in Iraq. But I think that people like given up on Iraq being a democratic country well before even U.S. forces withdrew from Iraq in 2011, even before the Bush administration left office. They had significantly ratcheted back their expectations to a country that could be stable, a government that could deliver services to its people and that could depend it on borders. And what we've seen over the last, however, many months, even before the Islamic State of Iraq And Syria overtook Mosul, the Iraqis are manifestly unable to defend their own borders. SCIUTTO: Let me ask you this. These are things that happen on the

ground. It's impossible for folks from the outside to determine the results in these places. That said, the U.S., the west have tremendous influence there. Was there something -- was there a mistake in the way Washington, the U.S. responded to the Arab spring that contributed to what we're seeing today?

COOK: Well, it is easy to look in hind sight and say that the administration should have done one thing or the other. And I think we need to recognize the fact that political stakes in these countries are so high that these uprisings created such tremendous expectations among people in these countries that when they're fighting for what they believe to be the heart and soul of their countries, it's hard for external powers to have decisive leverage on the political direction of these countries.

If you can criticize the administration for anybody, it might be, for example, assuming or in their public statements assuming that what we're seeing were democratic transitions or any number of political outcomes that could have happened. And we're seeing those different outcomes in the region now. That would have been a more realistic assessment in the heady days of early 2011 when these bloody uprisings kicked off.

But for a number of political reasons they felt it necessary to discuss the Egyptian democratic transition or the Libya democratic transition, as funny as those things sound now.

SCIUTTO: It's incredible how a vastly different how some of the country's experiences are. Tunisia has something of a government, this three-year-long civil war in Syria. And now Syria and Iraq run by ISIS. I mean, just a dramatic contrast there.

Steven Cook, thanks very much. Always great to have your expertise on the air.

COOK: Thanks, Jim.

SCIUTTO: We want to show you two cities in relative quiet, thankfully, for now. It is right after midnight in Gaza city and Jerusalem. Another cease-fire between Israel and Hama is now in effect just 30 minutes in. Egyptian officials got between the two sides again and made them agree to stop shooting at each other for at least 72-hours, three days. This is by no means the first cease-fire in this current conflict. And despite the other failures negotiators from Hamas and Israel expect to be at the peace table in Cairo tomorrow to discuss a more enduring agreement.

For now in Iraq, the U.S. is fighting ISIS just from the sky, but is it only a matter of time until American soldiers are back on the ground in Iraq?

Ahead, our guest says it's not a question of if but when the U.S. sends more Americans again into battle in Iraq.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) SCIUTTO: Welcome back. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington.

For the straight third day the United States military is engaged in combat in Iraq, all of it from the air, of course, against armored vehicles in fighting positions taken by fighters loyal to the Islamic military group ISIS near the northern city of Irbil.

A short time ago I had a conversation with retired U.S. Army Colonel Peter Mansoor. He's a CNN military analyst who was also aide to General David Petraeus during the surge of U.S. forces in Iraq in 2007, 2008. I -- began by asking Colonel Mansoor a very direct simple question. Is the U.S. at war again in Iraq?

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COL. PETER MANSOOR (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: It certainly is combat action and by any definition of the term, it is war. The objectives are very limited at present to protect the Kurdish enclave and to conduct humanitarian support to the trapped Yazidi people on Sinjar Mountain. But I don't think it will stop here and I think this is the first (INAUDIBLE) in the water and eventually this administration will have to confront how to destroy this Islamic state which poses such a threat to the -- to the rest of the world.

SCIUTTO: So do you think the administration is misleading when it says that its objectives are simply about U.S. personnel and a humanitarian mission?

MANSOOR: No, I don't think it's misleading at all. I think at this time those are the objectives. What they're waiting for is the creation of an Iraqi government that has greater legitimacy and one which all Iraqis can sign up to support. That is the precondition for greater involvement. And absent that, I think our objectives will remain very limited.

But look, you know, sooner or later we have to deal with the Islamic state. These are cutthroats, they're ruthless murderers, the true face of evil in the world today. And they will not stop with what they've taken. They will continue to destabilize the Middle East and then they'll come after us.

SCIUTTO: And you do not believe that the Iraqi military, even after this political agreement that the administration prioritizes, you don't believe the Iraqi military can stand up to them on their own?

MANSOOR: No. It's been proven that they cannot. And part of that is because Nouri al-Maliki has replaced the competent leaders with political hacks and partly because their training and so forth has degraded since the U.S. withdrawal at the end of 2011. This is going to take not weeks, not months but potentially years to completely eradicate the Islamic state. They're very competent fighters. They're now very well armed and very well financed and it's going to take a training mission and equipping mission to both the Kurdish Peshmerga and the Iraqi Security Forces, and of course robust airpower and intelligence assets as well. SCIUTTO: From the U.S. side. I mean, it sounds to me like you're

saying the U.S. is going back to war in Iraq and it's going to be -- not even for months as the president said but possibly years to fight the threat from ISIS.

MANSOOR: I don't think we have a choice. Do we really want the creation of an Islamic state with the vowed intention of turning the Middle East into an Islamist caliphate and injecting terrorism into the rest of the world? It's unacceptable and we're going to have to deal with it at some point.

SCIUTTO: It's an incredible turn of events just a couple of years after the president withdrew American forces from there.

I want to ask you this question. Did the U.S. underestimate the threat of ISIS? Because the fact is, it's not new, it was borne out of al Qaeda in Iraq which you dealt with it and General Petraeus dealt with. And then it morphed into something in Syria. The fact is, it's not new but do you believe that the U.S. intelligence community, the administration underestimated the threat?

MANSOOR: The administration definitely underestimated the threat as did the Iraqi government. They felt that ISIS was a marginal group involved in the Syrian civil war and really underestimated the fact that it's now an alliance with the former Baathathist army of Saddam Hussein, Iraqi tribes, Sunni tribes on the ground. And it's got real combat capabilities. And I think we missed that.

Now I'm not privy to the top secret CIA analysis. It's possible that our intelligence community got it right but it's all indications this administration was surprised by the depth and the speed of the Islamic state advance across northern and western Iraq.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: The U.S. hurdling towards war again in Iraq, says Colonel Peter Mansoor. He's CNN military analyst, also a former aide to General David Petraeus in Iraq.

It is possible we've never seen an enemy quite as brutal and ruthless as ISIS. And that reputation is helping them win battles before the fight even starts. We'll explain right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Welcome back. Many people in the U.S. are anxiously watching as Iraq crumbles under ISIS. They are concerned about loved ones there, and in an ominous sign the State Department announced it is relocating some of its staff from the U.S. consulate general in Irbil. This comes as they issue as well a travel warning saying, quote, "The ability of the embassy to respond to situations in which U.S. citizens face difficulties including arrest is extremely limited."

One Atlanta woman who did not want to share her identity tells CNN she fears for family members who are stuck in the Sinjar Mountain area. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MISS SULAIMAN, HAS FAMILY IN IRAQ: When they were calling over here, they were crying and they were saying, please, just help, we're dying from thirst. Just bring water there. They've been there and the kids, they couldn't walk and they couldn't make it all the way to the mountain. They don't know where are they.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Remember, a lot of Americans have friends and loved ones in Iraq. This is not a far away story.

CNN's Brian Todd joins us now from Washington.

So, Brian, you've been looking at ISIS, I know, for days and weeks as the threat has grown. Why is ISIS potentially more dangerous than other groups the U.S. has gone up against even, for instance, say, al Qaeda in Afghanistan?

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jim, a top U.S. intelligence official tells us ISIS is stronger now than ever. There's strength on the battlefield. It comes from better training, tactics, and psychological warfare than other militant groups have had in the past. Now we have to warn you some viewers might find some images in this story disturbing.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TODD (voice-over): They're ferocious and relentless, capturing huge swaths of territory at a time. ISIS is unlike any other terror group on the battlefield.

DOUGLAS OLLIVANT, NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION: This is not your father's al Qaeda.

TODD: The old militant tactics, hit and runs, ambushes, roadside bombs. When other terrorist groups went to battle against well- trained armies, they were often wiped out.

Iraq combat veteran Douglas Ollivant says ISIS is much more disciplined than militant forces of the past with good unit commanders, better tactics.

OLLIVANT: But for the black flags, this could be a platoon of American army soldiers or Marines circa 2004 or 2005. Get moving in formation, soldiers throughout the column. We can see the true-serve weapons, the machine guns in the vehicles that they can use to establish a base of fire.

TODD: Training is a big difference with ISIS, analysts say. They're getting help with that from outside.

PAUL CRUICKSHANK, CNN TERRORISM ANALYST: They also now have been bolstered by a significant number of Chechen fighters who have joined their ranks, also foreign fighters from across the Arab world, some with significant experience in urban warfare.

TODD: What also makes ISIS dangerous on the battlefield, the way they get the most from their arsenal.

OLLIVANT: Some of it is more primitive like this tank. But, perversely, the more primitive the equipment they capture, the more likely that they are to be able to use it, to maintain it. Simpler is better in their case. Mobile artillery pieces, other pieces of captured armored vehicles, we see several of them here.

TODD: A warning, you're about to see some disturbing video. ISIS units often win before they get to the battlefield because of this. Horrific propaganda videos show ISIS militants summarily executing captured opponents, shooting them in ditches, displaying the severed heads of their enemies on poles in the middle of city circles.

CRUICKSHANK: When it comes to ISIS, it's not about what they're capable of. But it's what people fear they're capable of, which gives them this advantage. And they have had a very deliberate strategy of terrorizing the Iraqi military.

TODD: Experts say Iraqi soldiers who have seen these videos often quit and run before the battle starts.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TODD: Now these videos are much more gruesome and disturbing than what we're showing viewers on CNN but ISIS still uses them successfully as a weapon and we feel it's appropriate to show some of it to give a better understand of how this group operates -- Jim.

SCIUTTO: No question, Brian. It is frightening and everyone is a target, whether civilian or soldier and the threat appears to be getting worse.

Brian Todd in Washington.

So how do you defeat a force that is so brutal, so terrifying, so determined to conquer Iraq and Syria? And how long could it take? Is it week, months? Could it be years? Is the U.S. about to get dragged back into a bloody ground war in Iraq? We'll try to answer those questions after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Just hours ago in Iraq, the State Department relocated some of its staff from the U.S. consulate in Irbil, in northern Iraq, citing the growing threat from the terrorist group ISIS. The rebels teeming with weapons, cash and ruthless fighters are posing a much different threat to Iraq and the region than ever seen before.

Does this mean the U.S. is in for a long battle there, possibly war?

We want to ask two people with great experience to this. We have CNN military analyst and lieutenant colonel, Rick Francona, and retired major general, James Williams. Colonel, if I could start with you, the president is saying months,

not weeks, in terms of this battle. I wonder when you start to imagine that the Iraqi military is not able to push back ISIS, do you think the U.S. is going to get dragged in for longer than the president is describing now?

LT. COL. RICK FRANCONA, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, I certainly hope not but that's certainly a possibility. I think what the president is trying to do is, first of all, to protect our people. Second, help in the humanitarian effort, but then he needs to blunt ISIS. He needs to slow these people down. He needs to stop them giving the Iraqi army time to get its act together, regroup and then go up there and push them back.

The status quo is not going to work. We cannot let ISIS take this territory and hold it. They are creating a state, they are creating a country, and if they are successful there, they will then come for us so it's imperative that we get them out of there.

Now how do we do that? We do it from the air to help the Iraqis or if need be, in the end, we may see American troops there again.

SCIUTTO: General Williams, if I could ask you, I spoke a short time ago to General Petraeus' former aide, Colonel Peter Mansoor. They, of course, you know, were the architects of the surge troops that helped fight the last time al Qaeda in Iraq which is sort of the forbearer of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria before.

He was saying, listen, when you look at the capability or rather the lack of capabilities of the Iraqi military, that the U.S. is going to have to be more involved going forward. In fact not just from the air but might need boots on the ground. At least in an advisory role more than you're seeing right now.

Do you think that that's a reasonable assessment?

MAJ. GEN. JAMES WILLIAMS (RET.), FORMER COMMANDER, 4TH MARINE BRIGADE: Absolutely. You know, one of the challenges for the Iraqi army, as you already know, they have run away from their posts, so this shows a lack of discipline. So with the lack of discipline, you need an organization, whether the United States or coalition forces to come in and provide them with professional military advice.

Otherwise, ISIS will just continue to expand their control of the territory and eventually, if U.S. forces are not on the ground, I don't see how we are going to keep ISIS at bay. I mean, we can certainly hit them with all the air power in the world. But at the end of the day the question then becomes, will they use civilians as shields? That creates a lot of complication for us as a military force.

SCIUTTO: Colonel Francona, this is the third or fourth -- I'm always losing count now -- general who today told me that the U.S. is going to be involved for the long haul here and that may very well involve ground troops. Do you think that the Obama administration is either misleading when

it talks about a limited mission or is, you know, for lack of a better term, behind the facts on the ground that a longer term mission is going to be necessary?

FRANCONA: I think they are hoping against hope. I think they are hoping that time and space will allow the Iraqis to stand up. I just don't see it. I don't think they have the capability and the time we can buy for them. And I'm going to have to side with the generals here. I think that eventually, you're going to see a ground force in there and I really cannot imagine it's not going to involve Americans, to some extent.

SCIUTTO: This is really just incredible. Our viewers, I imagine, might have some trouble digesting that but just three days after the president ordered military action from the air, a sense from a number of a few people that this is going to lead to ground forces.

I wonder if I could ask you, General Williams, based on your experience, we're hearing the beginning of reports out of Iraq that the current prime minister, Maliki, is refusing to step down. The administration has placed a lot of faith in a new, more inclusive government in Iraq. They say that there is not a military solution to this problem. You need an inclusive government there.

This is just breaking news. I wonder how ominous the sign you think this is that Maliki might refuse to step down.

WILLIAMS: I think this creates quite a bit of confusion. I mean, ultimately, in the last eight years, Prime Minister Maliki has shown his hand. You know, he is not an inclusive prime minister as far as bringing the Sunnis in. You know, all the challenges the Sunnis have had over the last two years specifically. You know, the politicians have been criminalized. Essentially, people were not getting food, there is not a lot of oil revenue sharing going on.

So there's some real challenges there and if he can't be an inclusive prime minister, I don't see how Iraq stays Iraq as we know it today. I think you end up with the three different divisions within the country.

SCIUTTO: Colonel Francona, if I could ask you before we go, if in a somewhat limited engagement, say, you have some troops, we're not talking about 150,000 American forces on the ground again, certainly, as was before, but in some sort of limited military operation, can the U.S. defeat ISIS?

FRANCONA: Well, of course we can. It's just, are we willing to commit the resources required? And I don't know what that number of resources is. It depends on how the situation develops. But I think we can pretty much write off the Iraqi army if Maliki's not willing to step down.

SCIUTTO: Well, you heard it here. A number of folks with direct experience in the Marines, Air Force, the Army and Iraq saying it looks like the U.S. headed, at a minimum, for more military involvement in Iraq, the possibility even of ground forces. That's an assessment we'll be watching.

Colonel Rick Francona, thanks very much. General James Williams, thank you as well.

I'm Jim Sciutto. For our international viewers, you'll be returning to your scheduled programming. For the rest of you, our fast forward look at the week ahead. That's going to start right after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)