Return to Transcripts main page

At This Hour

Hagel, Dempsey Testify in Senate About ISIS Plans; Will Congress Vote on Authorization of ISIS Airstrikes?; U.S. Air Strikes Near Baghdad

Aired September 16, 2014 - 11:00   ET

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

SEN. CLAIRE MCCASKILL (D), MISSOURI: Clearly, the moderate Sunnis have thrown in with ISIL because of the problems, political problems that they were confronted with in terms of exclusion from the Iraqi government.

So the clerics put out the call to repel ISIL to the Shia militias, and they have been partially responsible for the successes that there have -- that have occurred on the ground.

What are we doing? This is one of many complex problems that presents itself in this tangle that we're in, and one of the most complex is, how are with going to deal with the empowerment of the Shia militias within the Iraqi security forces moving forward as we try to ultimately get a political solution, which is a unified government and security forces that represent all parts of that country?

GENERAL MARTIN DEMPSEY, JOINT CHIEFS CHAIRMAN: A couple things, Senator. One is I'm a little reluctant -- in fact, I try not to ever talk about the Sunni as a monolithic bloc. If the senator's chart was still up there, it looks like ISIL had geographic objectives. It actually has tribal objectives. It eats its way tribe by tribe wherever it goes and the fact that it ends up in Mosul is actually more happenstance of the tribe they're trying to pursue.

If we showed the tribes on that slide, it would probably be 48 to 54 different tribes that ISIL has in some ways coerced or co-opted or driven away, so the Sunni are not monolithic in any sense, and we have to remember that.

The second thing is, on your question about the Shia militia, look, I think our offer of support here should lead to -- is -- will be conditional, and that is -- for example, there were 50 Iraqi brigades that we assessed. Twenty-six of them we assessed to be reputable partners. That is to say they've remained multi-confessional. They're well led. They still have their equipment. They seem to have a certain cohesion and a commitment to the central government.

The other 24 concerned us a bit on the issue of infiltration and leadership and sectarianism.

So we can apply our support conditionally, and that's the way we influence the outcome I think you're discussing. MCCASKILL: Finally, if -- I'm assuming this is a contingency

operation, and I wanted to point out that the new provisions of the war contracting legislation that have been put into law should be applicable for this effort.

I know that there is some talk that you've asked for cost estimates for security assistance, mentors, and advisors in Iraq through a contracting platform.

And I don't know. Are we building training facilities in Saudi, the American government, and if so, I just wanted to sound the alarm now before rather than after, because usually I'm hollering about after.

I want to sound the alarm before that all these contracting provisions that we've worked so hard to get into place that we don't go down the road of mistakes that we have traveled so frequently around this contracting space and contingencies.

CHUCK HAGEL, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: I can assure you, Senator, that any commitments we made in contracting or anything else we will follow the law clearly and consult with Congress.

MCCASKILL: Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, Senator McCaskill.

Senator Ayotte?

MICHAELA PEREIRA, CNN CO-ANCHOR: Good morning and welcome to THIS HOUR. I'm Michaela Pereira.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN CO-ANCHOR: And I'm John Berman.

You've been watching a fascinating discussion on Capitol Hill about the new U.S. efforts to battle ISIS. The big headline, U.S. ground forces could be headed back to combat situations in Iraq if military commanders believe it's necessary to defeat ISIS, at least that is the recommendation from the country's top general.

Both Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey went before the Senate armed services committee to make the case for the U.S. strategy to deal with ISIS.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI), CHAIRMAN, SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Thank you. Would you please leave? Would you please leave the room now? We're asking you nicely. We're asking you nicely to please leave the room.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PEREIRA: Several times the hearing was interrupted by anti-war protesters. They were escorted from the room while loudly urging lawmakers not to go along with plans for war. What we know is the White House will ask Congress for a half billion dollars to train, arm, and equip more than 5,000 moderate Syrian rebels for one year. The House is expected to begin debate on the request today, vote on it tomorrow.

So far, about 40 countries have agreed to contribute in the fight against ISIS, Iran, however, not one of them, calling it a, quote, "ploy" for the U.S. to dominate the region.

BERMAN: Intelligence analysts estimate right now ISIS has slightly more than 30,000 fighters in that region. About half are foreigners.

U.S. jets pounded an ISIS position about 20 miles outside of Baghdad. This is really the closest yet that the U.S. bombing on ISIS has come to the capital, and U.S. officials note this is a new phase in the effort to battle ISIS.

As for what General Dempsey said about the possibility of troops in combat situations, listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DEMPSEY: My view at this point is that this coalition is the appropriate way forward. I believe that will prove true.

But if that fails to be true, and if there are threats to the United States, then I of course will go back to the president and make a recommendation that may include the use of U.S. military ground forces.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PEREIRA: Our chief national security correspondent Jim Sciutto joins us now. Good morning to you.

Jim, obviously, American boots on the ground is what we're hearing talk of. Those cannot be words that Americans want to hear right now. How likely is that?

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, I'll tell you. I think we heard this morning in this hearing that no- ground-troops pledge parsed pretty thinly by this administration.

Dempsey went on to even greater detail to describe the circumstances under which he would order -- he would recommend to the president that these U.S. military advisors, of which there are nearly 1,700, at least 1,700 military personnel in Iraq right now, into what he called close-combat advisory role.

He said, for instance, if Iraqi forces were retaking the Mosul dam, a key piece of infrastructure, that he might need those forces not back in these command centers where they've been so far in Erbil, the capital of northern Iraq and Kurdistan, and in Baghdad, but in close advisory support at the front lines of one of these battles.

Now, the administration has already come back and said, listen, they're not going to be engaged in combat

But, listen, John, I know you've been embedded as well. We've been embedded with U.S. forces when they've been engaged and embedded with Iraqi forces and other forces.

If there's combat and those forces are up at the front line, even if they're not firing bullets, which I would expect them do if they came under threat, they're certainly at risk, and I think that this is slicing that definition of ground troops pretty thinly to -- close to the point where it loses its meaning, frankly.

And here you have the general here. He's the one who's been tasked by the president with carrying out this battle plan, and he has said to the American people, to the Senate, that, listen, if I need those guys closer to the front lines, I'm going ask the president for them.

BERMAN: Yeah. The bottom line, what he's talking about is having American troops in the middle of the fighting. Whether or not you call them combat troops or not seems insignificant.

And it makes perfect military sense, and by the way, it might be what the administration has meant all along, but, Jim, it's not what the administration has said all along. It does seem to be significantly different language.

On the subject of language, Jim, another big development from these hearings today, the strategy they now say is to destroy ISIS in Iraq, disrupt it in Syria. There's a distinction there, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Absolutely. No question. I think it acknowledges the facts on the ground, right?

In Iraq you have a significant ground fighting force. You've got 150 -- couple hundred thousand Iraqi military. You've got 120,000 Kurdish forces. That's 320,000 ground troops that you can pair with U.S. air power and military advisors to fight and, in the words of General Dempsey today, destroy ISIS there.

In Syria, you don't have that. They're talking about training 5,000 moderate rebels in Syria over the next year, and by saying that, well, in Syria the goal is to disrupt ISIS, acknowledging that you don't have the pieces in place, really, to take care of the problem, to destroy the problem there, in light of all the other issues there, civil war going on, et cetera.

But it's a very good point, John. It's another example of parsing the language on what this mission actually is.

PEREIRA: Jim Sciutto, looking at that with us, thank you so much.

A lot for us to discuss here as lawmakers drill down on U.S. strategy against ISIS, we want to bring in somebody who knows quite a lot about U.S. military operations.

BERMAN: Yeah. Congressman Mike Coffman is the only member of Congress to have served both in the first Gulf War and also the invasion after 2003.

Congressman, we've been watching this hearing. I trust you have also. The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff just mentioned the possibility that he would recommend that U.S. troops, these advisors in Iraq find themselves in close combat advisory roles, in essence, in the middle of the fighting.

Is that something you would support?

REP. MIKE COFFMAN (R), COLORADO: Well, I don't know how you do effective close air support when you're in direct contact with the enemy without having U.S. personnel on the ground directing that air support. So if we're going to be effective, I think we need to do that.

Where I personally draw the line, as an Iraq War veteran, is I don't want to see U.S. conventional ground troops go back in as a ground- combat element, as that maneuver element on the ground.

I'm reminded of the Battle of Fallujah in 2004 when we took -- when they just lured us into that. The foreign fighters and civilians cleared out and our Marine-led forces went house to house in some of the bloodiest combat of the entire war, and so I think we would certainly want to avoid that.

At the end of the day, there's got to be a political solution to this. The Iraqi government has to reach out to the Sunni Arabs, and without that, I don't think no matter what we put down on the ground it's going to make a lasting difference.

PEREIRA: Do you feel you have support on that argument?

COFFMAN: What's that? I'm sorry?

PEREIRA: Do you feel you have support on that argument? The idea that there needs to be political pressure as well?

COFFMAN: Oh, I think -- and the administration has done it. Now, granted, when there was no residual forces left in Iraq after 2011, the Maliki government reverted to their worst sectarian tendencies, but thank god with the Maliki government stepping down, with the new government forming, we've got to provide the influence we can in terms of making sure that that is an inclusive government.

Because I don't think that's a -- that is not a natural alliance between the Sunni Arabs, the Iraqi Sunni Arabs, and these foreign fighters, and I think if they feel like-- the Sunni Arabs feel like they've got a path to be a part of this government, I think we can exploited that fissure just as we did during the surge in the Sunni Awakening in Iraq.

BERMAN: Congressman, the House is set to vote on whether to authorize the training of the so-called moderate Syrian rebels, funding for that, but given especially what we just heard from the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, that it's possible he would recommend the U.S. military advisors engage in close-combat advisory roles, again, near the fighting, near perhaps the seizure of the dam in Mosul, given that we're talking about that now, doesn't Congress need to get in and vote to authorize specifically the use of force in Iraq and Syria?

COFFMAN: Well, I mean I believe that Congress ought to vote. I think we can debate the legal merits that the administration has put forward, but absent even the legal merits, I just think that to rely back on -- in 2001/2002 authorizations, I think there ought to be a new authorization really based on a new situation.

And so I believe that it shouldn't simply be a vote on Syria, on supporting the free Syrian elements of the Free Syrian Army and training them, but certainly, it ought to be on what I consider a new engagement in Iraq.

PEREIRA: Congressman Mike Coffman, thanks so much for joining us. I know it's a busy day for you. We appreciate you making time for us @THISHOUR.

COFFMAN: Thanks for having me. Thank you.

PEREIRA: All right, lawmakers are gearing up for this expanded fight against ISIS, but, wait, doesn't the president have to get approval from Congress to widen the war? He says no; others disagree.

BERMAN: And later, a pro-football player just got suspended for hitting his wife. Well, how about a federal judge? His punishment -- or some might say lack thereof -- might shock you. We're going to take a closer look.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PEREIRA: President Obama's two top military men are laying out the administration's strategy for defeating ISIS.

BERMAN: Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, and honestly it did not take long for the issue of ground forces, so- called boots on the ground, to come up. We're bringing in our special guest to discuss this now.

PEREIRA: The special guests are Margaret Hoover, CNN political commentator and Republican strategist, and John Avlon, CNN political analyst, editor-in-chief of 'The Daily Beast". Good to have you both with us.

Why don't we talk about the words -- Margaret, since you're here, I'll start with you. We've been hearing no boots on the ground from the President. He has said that he doesn't want to have combat troops there. Yet we hear from General Dempsey now that if he sees the need he will send -- will allow those military advisors to do what they need to do as boots on the ground and then go back to the President to address it. What's your take on that?

MARGARET HOOVER, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, what we're hearing from many military advisors on this is that it's -- the Free Syrian Army may not even want to fight and to engage with ISIS, and ISIL. They're really interested in the overthrow of Assad. They're not interested in this fight that we have with ISIS. That doesn't play into their national security interests; it plays into our national security interests.

I think, and it is my view and the view of many, that it is the President of the United States' job to secure the United States and do whatever it takes, that he has the congressional authority to do whatever he needs to do in order to make sure that America remains safe. If that means boots tonight ground, that means boots on the ground.

It is just quite politically ironic that he's come to this place where he's really presenting more of a unilateralist view that is much more echoing of maybe a former predecessor, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, rather than really the progressive left of his party or even the isolationist right now in terms of there's really a new alignment in terms of the foreign policy political coalitions that are forming, and I think that's the salient point here.

BERMAN: Well, you also have -- you brought up the issue that you think the president has the authority already to act.

HOOVER: He clearly does for 90 days. He has 60 days then 30 days. After that Congress is going to have to authorize this. What I think -- I mean, I think it's good for the American people and for Congress to vote and to authorize this, because we know that you can't sustain political -- military campaigns without the will of the American people on it. And the way you get will of the American people and the buy-in from the American people is to have an open and public debate on the congressional floor where Americans essentially buy in. That takes leadership from the president, and takes leadership from Congress.

You won't see that 51 days before an election, but you might get it right afterwards. And I think it's legal until the election. For the next six weeks, the president can act as he sees he needs to in order to secure the American public.

BERMAN: It may be legal, but it is not particularly politically courageous, John Avlon. I think there are two bodies that don't want this open debate about military action in Iraq and Syria right now, that would be the executive branch of the government and the legislative branch of the government. Neither seem to want to engage this constitutional responsibility.

JOHN AVLON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: No, that's right. And you've got a really interesting kind of conservative congressional kabuki about this. War hawks on Iraq who don't want to be seen as supporting the president, but they want him to take action on ISIS. So it is a fascinating line that you are watching.

And there's also a sense of overriding responsibility. When our allies in the U.K. initially went before the parliament on this, David Cameron got voted down. So it's a high-stakes debate and it's rooted in the Constitution. Congress has the right to declare war, the president is commander and chief, and there's a debate going on about whether the powers given President Bush after 9/11 went too far and whether they apply to this specific jihadist foe in a new country, Syria and Iraq, against a new enemy ISIL and not al Qaeda.

PEREIRA: We know there's some hesitancy, Margaret, on the part of some members of Congress to vote on this issue. We know midterm elections are right around the corner. Obviously this is weighing on their minds and on the hearts of many of them, and then on the political campaigns of many of them too.

HOOVER: I mean, there is some complete political paralysis on this. It isn't politically courageous, John, you're exactly right. Politics should stop at the water's edge. Every single elected official should vote and care about what's happening in Washington and what is happening abroad, because American security is at risk here and we need to take courageous votes. The problem is, 50 days before an election, you are just not going to get -- the reality -- we know what's happening. You won't get a vote in Congress 50 days before an election.

BERMAN: John, you're big on messaging, you've done this for your whole career, and I think that the strategy here and what is actually happening there at this point matters more than the messaging.

But today we heard there Martin Dempsey talking about the possibility of recommending close combat advisory roles for these military advisors. They might be in the middle of the fighting. That does seem different than the words that have been coming from this administration. Is this more of this message muddle?

AVLON: I don't know if it's a message muddle. I think it's a matter of trying to adjust strategy to facts on the ground. This is clearly a president who does not want to get involved in a massive military war in the Middle-East, i.e., boots on the ground, conventional troops. But it's a president also who's been aggressive about using special forces and air strikes. So you're trying to create a gray area where special forces doesn't mean boots on the ground, not in a conventional war sense.

That's where some of the message muddle comes in, but it's reflecting the ability for us to pivot and to not try and fight a war against ISIL with one hand tied behind our back, because that's a surefire loser we've seen over and over again in history.

PEREIRA: John Avlon, Margaret Hoover, always a pleasure to have you here, even talking about these things that infuriate and frustrate us all. Thanks so much.

HOOVER: Thank you.

PEREIRA: Ahead @THISHOUR, for the first time, U.S. air strikes have pounded ISIS targets very, very close to the center of Baghdad. It was all to help Iraqi forces win back territory. We are going to take a closer look with a sharp military mind after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BERMAN: U.S. military commanders seemed to open up the door for U.S. ground troops to find themselves in combat situations in the battle against is. Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsey said he would consider requesting American combat forces if ISIS cannot be stopped using the coalition hammered out yesterday in Paris. Now, while those troops are not being proposed at this time, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel cautioned that failure to defeat ISIS now poses a long-term threat to the United States and its allies.

PEREIRA: Current U.S. involvement is focused on using American air power to slow and degrade ISIS forces in Iraq. Those militants now perilously close to Baghdad, prompting U.S. air strikes against ISIS positions just 20 miles from the capital.

Our military analyst Colonel Rick Francona is here with us. Colonel, they've been very candid and you have even talked to us about the importance of air strikes in conjunction with -- The fact is that we now know ISIS is 20 miles outside of Baghdad. I'm curious, as we sit here and watch these hearings happen on Capitol Hill, what you're hearing -- what's coming to mind as you listen to General Dempsey and Secretary Hagel lay out their plans.

LT. COL. RICK FRANCONA (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, I think the plan is two phase, and seems to make sense. Although we're looking at ISIS as one target set, which is the right idea, they're looking at in the two phases. They'll do Iraq first and worry about Syria later.

That's probably the way to do it because Iraq makes sense, what they're doing there. They have 300,000 troops when you count the Iraqi army and Peshmerga. So we have a ground force there, there are boots on the ground, and combined with American air power, that will work. And I think it will only be a matter of time before we roll them up.

This air strike 20 miles south of Baghdad is probably the first step in doing that. That's about as far as ISIS has gotten, and they came down there south and west of Baghdad because they're trying to cut off the city, but that is where they are going to stop and roll them back

BERMAN: And this wasn't a humanitarian operation. This wasn't to free people stuck on a mountain, this wasn't to win back a dam; this was to help with the offensive efforts against ISIS.

FRANCONA: And this is being the Iraqi Air Force that isn't ready to fight yet. So this will work and we'll see this roll up. This is how it's supposed to work. This is the template for what we should be doing, but it won't work in Syria.

PEREIRA: Explain to me why, because non-military minds -- Michaela is going to say if you have a cancer, you root it out. You don't destroy it in one area and kind of contain it in another area but --

BERMAN: They literally said destroy it in Iraq and disrupt in Syria.

PEREIRA: Exactly, and by disrupting, the cancer is still there. FRANCONA: This was a change I think many of us were surprised by,

because you cannot cede territory to them, and it sounds like that's what we're doing. We're going to push them out of Iraq but allow them to exist in Syria and only disrupt them Syria. That seems to be against the point.

PEREIRA: That would mean a future attack -- or future threat is imminent.

FRANCONA: Exactly. It doesn't defeat the threat. All it does is push it out into the future and makes it more difficult for them to operate. But it doesn't destroy the cancer.

BERMAN: Colonel, just to sum up, we've been talking about will there be boots on the ground. Will the U.S. force that are there find themselves in combat situations? If you are near the fightingm you are near the fighting and in harm's way. Is this a distinction without a difference?

FRANCONA: Yes, it is. And I get -- everybody has to play their word games and all that, boots on the ground, combat roles, and all that. I think it's safe to say that right now we've got young American men and women putting their lives on the line dropping bands.

And they raised a good point here, I think it was Senator McCain who brought it up, what happens when one of these airplanes go down? Are we going to go out and get them? That is boots on the ground again. We have people in combat. We should just say that.

PEREIRA: Let that sink in for a minute. Lieutenant Colonel Rick Francona, always a pleasure to have you here.

We'll turn our eyes to another story that is captivating headlines; it is the fight against Ebola. Is it more critical than the battle against ISIS? We want to compare the number of U.S. military personnel involved in each of those crises and it might make you wonder.

BERMAN: We're going to look at President Obama's growing commitment to fighting the deadly virus in West Africa. A big announcement coming up in just an hour or so.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)