Return to Transcripts main page
Wolf
Reaction to Obama's ISIS Plan; Senator Nelson Will Vote Yes; McCain and Carney Spar Over Iraq; ISIS Campaign; ISIS Fight Compared to Yemen & Somalia; Interview with Sen. Bill Nelson
Aired September 11, 2014 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: President Obama lays out his [plan to take on ISIS. Today, the Obama administration is trying to sell that plan to key members of Congress. One of them, Senator Bill Nelson of Florida. He's standing by to join us live. There he is.
President Obama is also asking Congress for approval to train local forces, including Syrian rebel fighters, designed all of which to take on ISIS. But how can the United States trust those that the U.S. teaches will not turn on the U.S.? And we'll also hear from retired U.S. Army lieutenant general -- a retired U.S. Army lieutenant general who trained Iraqi security forces.
Also, on this 13th anniversary of the 911 attacks, worries of a new terror threat against America.
Hello, I'm Wolf Blitzer reporting from Washington. He's promised to ultimately destroy ISIS, but how is President Obama's plan to take on the terror group being received and what happens now? The president laid out his strategy for prime -- in a prime-time address last night among other things. He plans to expand air strikes against ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria, and he wants to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels. Some are calling the speech an outline of what some are calling the Obama foreign policy doctrine.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country wherever they are. This is a core principle of my presidency. If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven. And it is consistent with the approach I outlined earlier this year, to use force against anyone who threatens America's core interests. But to mobilize partners wherever possible to address broader challenges to international order.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Some of the president's Republican critics are calling the strategy a good first step, but they say success will depend on implementing the plan. Here's what the House speaker, John Boehner, said just a little while ago about arming Syrian rebels.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOHN BOEHNER, U.S. SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: An F-16 is not a strategy. And air strikes alone will not accomplish what we're trying to accomplish. And the president's made clear that he doesn't want U.S. boots on the ground. Well somebody's boots have to be on the ground. And so, I do believe that what the president has asked for, as the commander in chief, is this authority to train these Syrian rebels and, frankly, we ought to give the president what he's asking for.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: We're also hearing strong reaction to the president's ISIL battle plan from members of the Senate. One of President Obama's most vocal critics in that chamber, Senator John McCain, says he will support the president on one condition. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: If he can convince me, and I'm not yet convinced that it isn't just going to be half measures and he isn't just reacting to polling numbers, I'll support him because many of the things he's saying he's doing now is what we have been arguing for for the last three years.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: The Obama administration holding closed door briefings with key members of the House and Senate today. Officials are expected to lay out what's going to be required of the U.S. military and the intelligence community to carry out this complicated new mission.
Joining us now live from Capitol Hill, Democratic Senator Bill Nelson of Florida. Senator, thanks very much for joining us. A quick question. One of the things the president wants is a vote in favor of $500 million, a half a billion dollars to arm and train Syrian moderate Syrian rebels. Will you vote yay or nay on that legislation?
SEN. BILL NELSON (D), FLORIDA: I will vote yes and the Congress needs not only to do that, but we need to vote to give the authorization for him to use the forces that he's talked about. We need the unity of this government, not only for our allies, but for our enemies to understand our unity as well.
BLITZER: Is it smart for the United States to tell ISIS and other terrorists there will be no U.S. combat forces involved in this effort to destroy you, only air power?
NELSON: Yes. And the reason is, you can draw the authorization for force by prohibiting rotational forces, that is large land mass armies. But you still allow the military the flexibility if they need a commando raid, special operations, if they need forward air observers, which all of which are boots on the ground, American boots on the ground, in addition to the air strikes, coordinated with a coalition, coordinated with others' boots on the ground, then that's how you bring about the success that we've already seen in northern Iraq and in the Kurdish area. BLITZER: So, what you're saying is you do support certain boots on
the ground, commandos, special operations forces, people, U.S. military personnel who will go in there, risk their lives to help coordinate air strikes. Is that what you're saying?
NELSON: Of course. You've got to give our military the ability to carry out a successful operation. And it's not just by looking from the air. Sometimes you're going to have to go. Remember, we've already had boots on the ground when we went in to try to rescue the journalist. That was American boots on the ground.
BLITZER: So, why does the president keep saying there will be no U.S. combat boots on the ground? The White House line is there will be no combat boots on the ground. It sounds like they have a different attitude than you do.
NELSON: No, I don't believe so. He is talking about the big land mass armies, the whole-scale invasion into Iraq that was done. That's what the president doesn't want. That's not what I want. That's not what I think the American people want.
BLITZER: Are there any other coalition partners who will join the U.S. in launching air strikes against ISIS targets, not only in Iraq, but in Syria as well? I'm not talking about the Iraqi Air Force. I'm talking about Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Turkey, Jordan, any of those countries you believe are committed to joining the U.S. in air strikes?
NELSON: I just came from Secretary Hagel, Secretary Kerry is over in the region right now. They're working full time to put together this coalition.
BLITZER: So, what's the answer? Has anybody -- have the Saudis -- they have a huge air force. They have F-15s. They have F-16s. They have AWACS. They have sophisticated aircraft. Are they committed to launching air strikes?
NELSON: I can tell you, Wolf, that we're definitely going to try to get them to do it. Now, when it comes to the Turks, remember, they've got over 40 hostages held by ISIS right now. So, it's going to be a little more difficult for the Turks, at this point.
BLITZER: Turkey is a NATO ally. You would think they would be on board on an issue like this. I understand that there are 40 Turkish diplomats who were taken by ISIS. But if that's going to prevent Turkey from getting involved, that will only encourage ISIS to take diplomats and civilians from all sorts of other countries if Turkey is going to be cowed like that.
NELSON: Well, I believe, at the end of the day, that Turkey and our other NATO partners will be in this. But after all, you've got to give them some leeway right now.
BLITZER: There was a debate that's generated a lot of commotion out there on social media between Senator McCain and Jay Carney, the former White House Press Secretary, now a CNN contributor, on this inability of the Obama administration to get what's called a residual force left in Iraq after all U.S. troops pulled out at the end of 2011. Listen to a little clip.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MCCAIN: You, in your role as a spokesperson, bragged about the fact that the last American combat troop had left Iraq. If we had left a residual force, their situation would not be what it is today and there would not -- there would be a lot more --
JAY CARNEY, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Senator, I can - I can pause it, with great respect for you that we -
MCCAIN: You can't.
CARNEY: -- disagree on that.
MCCAIN: You can't.
CARNEY: And that you -
MCCAIN: No, you can't.
CARNEY: -- and that you -
MCCAIN: No, you can't -
CARNEY: -- sir, if I may.
MCCAIN: -- because you don't have the facts.
CARNEY: Well, --
MCCAIN: You don't have the facts, Mr. Carney. That's the problem.
CARNEY: Senator, I understand that you present the facts that you believe are true based on the arguments -
MCCAIN: No.
CARNEY: -- that you've made --
MCCAIN: No, not I believe -
CARNEY: -- wrong -
MCCAIN: -- are true.
CARNEY: -- for a long time, sir, --
MCCAIN: They are true.
CARNEY: -- that we should lead troops in Iraq in perpetuity.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: All right, you're a member of the Armed Services Committee. Why wasn't there a few thousand U.S. troops who were left behind, what Senator McCain, Senator Lindsey Graham, others say, if there had been a U.S. military presence, maybe this current crisis could have been avoided?
NELSON: I think it's time to move on from that, but I will answer your question. I think it's time for us to unify and get on with this new threat. I believe that the administration wanted to keep a residual of troops. It made sense. It's what we're trying to do right now in Afghanistan as we are about to leave. But, the Maliki government, specifically Maliki, said no. Well, you see how good a leader he was for the Iraqi government. Finally, he's gone.
BLITZER: Because Senator McCain says that Maliki would have been ready but it was President Obama and the Obama administration who really didn't try. They wanted to leave maybe a thousand or 2,000. Maliki, he says wanted significantly more, 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. troops remaining and it was only a thousand or 2,000. That wasn't good enough and that's why he wouldn't give immunity to U.S. military personnel who remain in Iraq as part of a new status of forces agreement. What do you say to that?
NELSON: It's all evolved around that status of forces agreement whether or not there would be liability as to the number of troops that we wanted to be left there. I think it was the higher number, not the lower number.
BLITZER: That's what the U.S. -- I know that the military wanted 5,000 to 10,000. The question is, and we'll check this, how much did the Obama administration, as a whole, want to keep there? And you're right, the Nuri Al Maliki refused to provide immunity to any U.S. troops staying. They've changed that. The 1600 troops who are now serving in Iraq, and they're all wearing boots I should say, the 1,600 troops who are now in Iraq, they do have immunity from prosecution from Iraqi law. That's one of the reasons they are there. But I also agree with you, it's time to look ahead and move on. Senator Nelson, thanks very much for joining us.
NELSON: Thanks, Wolf.
BLITZER: President Obama's plan to defeat ISIS presents major challenges to the U.S. military. We're going to take a closer look at the most difficult aspects of the mission. Critics worry could backfire on the U.S. That's next.
And the nation marks the 911 anniversary with a new poll. Take a look at this, showing growing concern about the threat of another terrorist attack. We'll have details. That's coming up as well.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: The president's military plan to dismantle and ultimately destroy the terror group, ISIS, involves sending, at least for now, another 475 U.S. military advisors to Iraq, launching air strikes in Iraq and Syria, arming and training moderate Syrian rebels. Let's discuss. Joining me, retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Michael Barbaro. General, thanks very much for coming in.
LT. GEN. MICHAEL BARBERO, U.S. ARMY, RETIRED: Thank you, Wolf.
BLITZER: I want to get to that. But you were there. You were on active duty in Iraq, 2010, 2011 when they were trying to negotiate that Status of Forces -
BARBERO: Right.
BLITZER: -- Agreement that would have left a residual force, 5,000 or 10,000 U.S. troops, but you couldn't get immunity from Nuri al Maliki's government. Take us behind the scenes, clarify, who's right, John McCain or Jay Carney, in this debate.
BARBERO: Well, in the summer of 2010, prepared a briefing, I was responsible for Iraqi security forces, and took it to all the Iraqi leaders, Maliki, the other Shia leaders, the Sunnis, the Kurds, and said here is going to be the status of your security forces, what they cannot do, what they will be able to do, when we're schedule to leave. And to a man they said, well, general, you must stay. And my response was, you must make it easy for us. So I think Maliki did not make it easy for us and we did not try hard enough. So it's a -- both views. I think it could have been done though.
BLITZER: Because the U.S. -- the Pentagon position was, 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. troops staying -
BARBERO: Right.
BLITZER: For an indefinite amount of time.
BARBERO: Right.
BLITZER: But you wanted immunity from prosecution as part of the status of forces agreement. What happened then because the White House says Nuri al Maliki wouldn't give that immunity to any residual U.S. force.
BARBERO: I think we could have worked it and kept it from going through the parliament. I think we could have - we have immunity today, it didn't go through the parliament. So I think it could have been worked if we had tried harder.
BLITZER: You don't think the administration tried hard enough to get it?
BARBERO: I don't think so.
BLITZER: That's the McCain position, that could have been done but the White House didn't want it to be done. They wanted all U.S. troops.
BARBERO: I don't think we tried hard enough.
BLITZER: You think it was - it was definitely doable.
BARBERO: I think it was. BLITZER: There was another argument that the Pentagon wanted 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. troops to remain.
BARBERO: Right.
BLITZER: The White House said maybe 1,000 or 2,000 for a year and the Iraqis said well that's not good enough.
BARBERO: Right. No, and -
BLITZER: Was - is that true?
BARBERO: That is true. And we wanted them pulled back on these training sites where we're fielding military equipment to train the Iraqi, not in any kind of combat role at all.
BLITZER: All right, so let's move ahead now as -
BARBERO: OK.
BLITZER: Sort of clarified that debate, which has resurfaced as I said.
Is this new plan -- and you heard Senator Nelson say he wants some boots on the ground, some special operations forces, commandos, I believe those are combat troops. I haven't heard that from the administration yet, have you?
BARBERO: I have not. But that's the question, who is going to be the partner on the ground? It's great that we have increased air strikes into Syria, but the decisive effort is on the ground with conventional and special operations forces. And those have not been identified. Nor are Iraqi security forces or Kurdish forces capable at this time. I was in Kurdistan a week ago and they are not inclined to do anything other than to protect the integrity --
BLITZER: They're getting some -- they're getting some weapons, but not much. They're not much.
BARBERO: It's trickling in. It's trickling in -
BLITZER: Yes.
BARBERO: And they're frustrated with the way it's coming.
BLITZER: Here's what worries me and you know a lot more about this than I do. The - ISIS. Isn't not just a bunch of terrorists out there. There's an army. They have a real army. They've got real military, professional military officers. You know, former Saddam Hussein generals. But also senior officers who served in the Iraqi army post- Saddam Hussein who are well trained and I believe many of them were trained by the United States of America, that now they're part of ISIS and they're trying to kill not only Kurds -
BARBERO: Right.
BLITZER: And other Iraqis, but eventually the U.S. Is that true?
BARBERO: They -- some could have been. I don't have the facts on how many or what, but some very well could have been.
BLITZER: Because some of these Sunni officers who served -
BARBERO: Right.
BLITZER: In the Iraqi military, they hated the Shiite led government of Nuri al Maliki.
BARBERO: Right. Right.
BLITZER: And they -- you know what, they defected to ISIS -
BARBERO: Right.
BLITZER: Not only because they hated Nuri al Maliki, because they're going to get a lot more money. This ISIS group, they have hundreds of millions of -- they may have a few billion dollars that they've stolen from banks in Mosul and elsewhere.
BARBERO: Right. It's a terrorist army. They have an infrastructure, a strategy and they are on the march both in Syria and Iraq. Wolf, it was most troubling is, while they were doing this sweep in June through Iraq, they were expanding their operations in Syria. They are very capable and they're a serious threat to the region.
BLITZER: And I believe they do have a professional officer corps -
BARBERO: Right.
BLITZER: That's part of a real army.
BARBERO: They are a real army.
BLITZER: It's not just a bunch of terrorists -
BARBERO: Right.
BLITZER: Who are in control of a chunk of Syria and Iraq now the size of Great Britain.
BARBERO: Right. Right. They are a real army.
BLITZER: Yes. All right, so there's a major mission. It's not going to take a few weeks to resolve this.
BARBERO: No.
BLITZER: This is going to go on and on.
General, thanks very much for coming in.
BARBERO: Thank you, Wolf.
BLITZER: Appreciate it. Thanks for all your service as well.
BARBERO: Thank you very much.
BLITZER: Still ahead, the comparison the president made that has some people questioning his overall strategy. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: The president said his plan to fight ISIS will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He called it a counter terrorism campaign, citing Yemen and Somalia as successful examples. Brian Todd is here doing a little reality check for us.
What are you finding out about that comparison?
BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That comparison has set off a lot of debate here in Washington and elsewhere today, Wolf. First, let's take a look at what the president said last night about that very thing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil. This counterterrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out ISIL wherever they exist using our air power and our support for partner forces on the ground. This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us while supporting partners on the front lines is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TODD: Now, the Somalia piece, some people are agreeing with, Wolf, because al Shabaab in Somalia has been degraded. Their leader was just killed. So that -- you can probably separate that and maybe find some agreement with the president there.
But some analysts and others are saying, when you look at Yemen, some people believe really you cannot call that a success yet. Senator Marco Rubio said that. Some others are saying that today. Mainly because al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, AQAP, is still a resilient, viable, terrorist organization that can still threaten the United States and put bombs on planes. Their leader, Nasir al-Wuhayshi, is still alive. Their master bomb-maker, Ibrahim al-Asiri, is still alive. That's the guy who successfully put bombs on planes bound for the United States. While al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has been attacked by the Yemeni army and by U.S. drones and decimated in some areas, they've shown some resilience and been able to push into other areas and keep some of their capability alive. That's still an open question as to whether Yemen is a real success, Wolf.
BLITZER: But, you know, the other criticism of the president is, you're comparing apples and oranges in a sense. You've got al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen. You've got al Shabaab in Somalia. But these are terrorist groups. They're bands. They don't really control a whole lot of land or anything like that.
TODD: No, they do not.
BLITZER: They certainly don't have tanks, armored personnel carriers. They don't have sophisticated weapons. They don't have an officer corps. They don't have an army. And they don't have hundreds of millions of dollars like ISIS has, which controls a huge amount of territory in Syria and Iraq and they've got a military, they've got a terrorist army, that they're in charge of with sophisticated officer corps.
TODD: Those are key differences, Wolf. And here's another difference. In the areas where ISIS controls, you don't have a government necessarily, especially -- you know, the U.S. is about to go into Syria with this -- you don't have a government who's cooperating with you. In Yemen and in Somalia, you've got governments that are cooperating with you, with the United States. That's another big difference.
ISIS, yes, has a much better capability to fight on the ground than those two groups have. And in Yemen and in Somalia, to a lesser degree, you have governments that are putting their forces on the ground cooperating with you. You're not going to have that in Syria.
BLITZER: Yes, because you -- the Syrian government, the U.S. wants to get rid of, that's the Bashar al Assad regime.
TODD: That's right. We'll look at more of this in "The Situation Room."
BLITZER: Yes. All right, Brian, we'll see you later at 5:00 p.m. Eastern.
Arab countries, they are rallying behind this new fight led by the United States against ISIS. Ten countries, in fact, agreed to do their part. That's a direct quote from a communique that has just been issued. They include Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, the United Arab Emirates. The secretary of state, John Kerry, is currently on a mission to try to build Arab support in the region for the U.S. strategy. This latest statement came at the end of a meeting between Secretary Kerry and his Arab counterparts in Saudi Arabia. The secretary travels to Cairo on Sunday.
Last night we heard the president's plan to target ISIS and now the ball, at least part of it, is in Congress' court. Should members be forced to take a vote, cast a vote, take a stand? Our political insiders, they are standing by to break it all down.
And a somber anniversary amid new worries about a new terrorist attack. The latest on security concerns as America remembers the victims of 9/11.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
