Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

President's ISIS Plan A Tough Sell to Congress; Live Coverage of Senate Hearing on ISIS

Aired September 16, 2014 - 09:30   ET

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


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning and thank you so much for being with me. I'm Carol Costello. Happening right now on Capitol Hill, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Joint Chiefs Chairman, General Martin Dempsey, set to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee. It's the first in a series of high-profile hearings this week to address the ISIS threat in Syria nad in Iraq.

Hagel and Dempsey will try to garner support of President Obama's strategy to train and equip Syrian rebels in the fight to dismantle and destroy ISIS. It could be a tough sell, though, even from some members of the president's own party. One of the biggest concerns is that the weapons that you give to the Syrian rebels could end up in the hands of ISIS.

Our correspondents, analysts, and guests are here to cover all the angles for you. With me now, Barbara Starr, our Pentagon correspondent; Maria Cardona, CNN political commentator and Democratic strategist; Reihan Salam, CNN political commentator and contributing editor to "The National Review"; Major General James "Spider" Marks, CNN military analyst; and Josh Rogin, CNN political analyst and senior correspondent for "The Daily Beast."

Welcome to all of you. Thank you for being with me.

MAJ. GEN. JAMES "SPIDER" MARKS (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Thanks, Carol.

COSTELLO: Thanks.

OK, so let's start with this. Perhaps General Dempsey can answer the ultimate question today, when do we know we've defeated ISIS? Democratic Senator Joe Manchin isn't buying any of it. He told CNN he will not vote to arm those Syrian rebels. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOE MANCHIN (D), WEST VIRGINIA: To go in now thinking we're going to pick when we know there's hundreds and hundreds of different sectors and segments of violence over there and terrorists, and we're going to pick and try to segregate 3,000 or 5,000 thinking they'll make a difference? We just armed 280,000. We just built an army in Baghdad, couldn't do a thing. Turned and ran and turned over their weapons. And now here we are. We have pictures of our - of our arsenal, if you will, Humvees and MRAPs and everything else moving into Syria that they confiscated from Mosul. Why would we want to repeat this type of performance? I makes no sense to me.

I will vote no, absolutely no, and stand tall in West Virginia to explain my vote, why I vote no to arm, to train, to spend $500 million in Syria and on Syrian rebels who I don't know who they are, what they're going to do, and if they're ever going to be loyal to America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COSTELLO: OK, so General Marks, is Senator Manchin right?

MARKS: Well, I tell you, he's absolutely going down the right path. The challenge with arming Syrian rebels at this point is, how do you really segregate good from bad and alliances as we've discussed. Alliances in that part of the world shift all the time. So hard does not mean it's impossible.

And also bear in mind that there are really three elements that we're talking about, the Syrian rebels, the Peshmerga up in northern Iraq and the Iraqi security forces. All of those together create a strategy that allows us to at least move forward with ISIS. All of them have their own challenges, and we know that. But if we do nothing, we stand to kind of stand - we're going to stand by and watch this thing just get worse and worse over time. So it's a matter of acting right now. But I agree that the Syrian rebel piece is extremely difficult.

COSTELLO: Yes. So let's say we put this strategy into play. So, Reihan, what does a win look like for the United States?

REIHAN SALAM, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think the ultimate problem is that you need a moderate Syrian opposition force that can win and hold territory. And I don't think that this strategy is going to be enough to get us there because what they're trying to do is take existing rebels who are on the ground rather than building a truly capable military force. And, frankly, I think that's going to be where we wind up having to go sooner or later. And right now this is a bit of a half measure. So I'm sympathetic to those who say that, you know, look, where exactly is this going, because they're not going far enough yet in my view.

COSTELLO: So, Barbara Starr, you're the Pentagon correspondent. You talk with military people and your sources. What do your sources say about this strategy?

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, look -- you know, not unexpectedly, look for Dempsey and Hagel to defend it all the way this morning at this hearing. Are they excited about it? I don't think so. Both men very cautious, as is the president, of course, about the use of military power, but at this point, it may be, you know, the best least worst option that we have.

Right now what we do know is the Pentagon gathering intelligence on targets, on ISIS targets, inside Syria, looking to see what is there, trying to fine-tune those targets, get the most precise intelligence they can and be prepared to go after them. But what you're going to see at this hearing is both men, Hagel and Dempsey, saying the military can only do part of the job. That, you know, this is really a fight against a radical ideology that is very violent and very brutal. Air strikes don't solve that.

COSTELLO: Barbara, let's pause for a minute to listen to these - I would assume they're Code Pink anti-war protesters. Let's listen.

PROTESTERS: No more war. No more war. No more war. No more war. No more war. No more war.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There's no military solution to this. No more war.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No more war.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Twenty-four thousand bombing runs.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No more war.

War does not work. No more war. There is no military solution. (INAUDIBLE). There are no (INAUDIBLE).

SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI), CHAIRMAN, SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: The committee will come to order and we're asking (INAUDIBLE) to take their seats and be quite or please leave.

COSTELLO: All right, let's listen.

LEVIN: This morning, the committee receives testimony from the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq in the levant (ph), known as ISIS or ISIL, and on the president's strategy for addressing this threat.

Secretary Hagel and General Dempsey, we welcome you both. We look forward to your testimony.

ISIS has terrorized the Iraqi and Syrian people, engaging in kidnappings, killings, persecutions of religious minorities, and attacking schools, hospitals and cultural sites. ISIS has brought home its barbarity with the brutal beheading of American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff, and British aid worker David Haines.

While ISIS is currently focused on building an Islamic caliphate in the Middle East, its poisonous ideology is hostile not only to the region but to the world, and there is real risk that the area it controls could become a launching pad for future terrorist attacks against the United States and our allies.

This threat is amplified by foreign fighters who travel from Western countries to join with ISIS, and then return to their countries of origin with advanced training and fighting experience.

I recently returned from Iraq where U.S. air strikes are helping Kurdish peshmerga forces and Iraqi security forces break ISIS' momentum. However, our military leaders and intelligence experts uniformly say that airstrikes alone will not be sufficient to defeat ISIS.

A number of elements of a successful strategy against ISIS are embodied in the approach outlined by the president last week.

First, the participation of key Arab states in the region will be critical to the effectiveness of any international coalition. If Western countries act in Iraq and Syria without visible participation and leadership of Arab nations, it will play into the propaganda pitch of the violent extremists that we're interested in dominating Iraq and Syria. ISIS' poisonous strand of Islam is a threat to all Muslim countries and can only be purged in a lasting way by mainstream Islam and the Arab world.

The international conferences in Jeddah last week and in Paris yesterday were a good start, with a number of Arab states declaring their shared commitment to develop a strategy, quote, "to destroy ISIL wherever it is, including in both Iraq and Syria," close quote and joining in an international pledge to use, quote, "whatever means necessary," close quote, to achieve this goal.

Second, our assistance has been requested by the government of Iraq, which has made a commitment to govern in an inclusive manner. The effort to rid Iraq of ISIS cannot be successful without the support of all elements of Iraqi society, including not only Shiites, Kurds and religious minorities, but also the Sunni tribes who strongly opposed the Maliki government.

The more the new government in Baghdad does to address the grievances of Iraq's Sunni communities, the more successful they will be in helping rid their country and the world of the ISIS poison.

Third, the president has announced that combat operations in Iraq and Syria will be carried out by Iraqis and Syrians with the support of a broad international coalition. That is the better approach because in this part of the world, the use of military force by Western nations can be counterproductive if it's not done correctly.

In the absence of a Western target on the ground, ISIS' actions will undermine its own cause because its brutality will continue to be targeted at fellow Muslims.

We should be fully engaged in training and equipping Iraqis, Syrians, Kurds and other local forces that are willing to take on ISIS, but we should try to counter the narrative of fanatics who attack Western combat forces on the ground as an occupation.

I believe the president under both domestic and international law has the authority to conduct the type of limited military campaign that he outlined last week. However, bipartisan, bicameral congressional support will make it easier for the president to build an international coalition, including the open and visible support of Arab countries.

We should have the chance before we leave to vote on legislation that would authorize the U.S. military to openly train and equip the vetted moderate opposition in Syria, and I hope that Congress can come together to support it.

COSTELLO: All right, we're having transmission problems. That was Senator Carl Levin. He's the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. He was giving his opening statement which lasts five to 10 minutes. Up next will be the ranking member, the Republican member, from Oklahoma. He'll also give an opening statement. And can we go back to the hearing or -- we cannot. OK. So let's talk about what we heard from Carl Levin.

Maria Cardona, are you with me?

MARIA CARDONA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I'm here, Carol.

COSTELLO: All right. You heard what Carl Levin said, it would be nice if the president had congressional support and if lawmakers could take a vote to train and equip Syrian rebels.

CARDONA: Uh-huh.

COSTELLO: Sounds reasonable.

CARDONA: I think he -- yes, absolutely. I think he's right. And from everything that I have heard on both sides of the aisle, it seems like Congress is headed in that direction, though I think it is critical to continue to have this debate on what will success look like and what will ensure that success. I think what we heard in the opening remarks is critical, Carol, and that is to remind the American people the successes that this administration and the country have had thus far in the region, number one, making sure that the Iraqi government is inclusive (ph).

COSTELLO: I'm going to interrupt you, Maria, because we got our - we got our technical snafus.

CARDONA: OK.

COSTELLO: This is Senator Inhofe. Let's listen to his opening statement.

SEN. JAMES INHOFE (R-OK), RANKING MEMBER, SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: We know we face an extremist organization that is larger and more brutal, better networked and better funded than al Qaeda ever was.

I believe it's critical to have in the record the -- that we established today how ISIS is fundamentally different from Al Qaeda.

First of all, Al Qaeda hides in caves. ISIS takes holds and governs territories the size of my state of Oklahoma. Secondly, Al Qaeda has small groups of specialized fighters using terrorist tactics. ISIS is an army with tanks, artillery, using conventional military insurgent and terrorist tactics. Al Qaeda is based in remote religions -- regions of the world. ISIS sits in -- on Europe's doorstep. Al Qaeda outdated propaganda on -- has -- uses the outdated propaganda in Arab language media, but ISIS uses sophisticated media in multiple languages, including English to spread its cause to recruit fighters. Al Qaeda spent $1 million. This is very significant, Mr. -- Mr. Chairman. They spent $1 million on 9/11. ISIS, we're going to say until today takes more than $1 million every day. There's an A.P. story this morning that shows very convincingly that they have access to an additional $3 million every day.

Now, the second thing that I think is a vital area: the president's strategy to defeat ISIS is fundamentally detached from the reality on the ground. Let's be clear. ISIS commands a territory -- a terrorist army comprised of tens of thousands of organized fighters who have tanks and high-tech missiles and artillery. Its conventional battlefield successes have allowed it to triple its ranks in size in only three months. It will take an army to beat an army.

But instead, the president presented the limited counter- terrorism strategy that he compared to his approach in Yemen and Somalia. The difference between Al Qaeda in Yemen and Somalia and that of ISIS are enormous, and our strategy for each should reflect that reality. Taking this one-size-fits-all is destined for failure.

General Deptula architected the successful U.S. air campaign that destroyed the Taliban army on the battlefield in 2001 said -- and this is a quote, he said, "We need to institute an aggressive air campaign in which air power is applied like a thunderstorm, not like a drizzle." Furthermore, air strikes can only be fully effective, especially in urban areas and ISIS entrenched in. When paired with skills of a trained air controller on the ground, the president -- the president already ruled out boots on the ground.

There was a collective sigh of relief at ISIS headquarters in Syria when they heard him say that. His claim of no boots on the ground is an insult to the men and women in Iraq today who are serving in harm's way. We already have boots on the ground in Irbil, in Baghdad and throughout Iraq. We should ask the pilots dropping bombs over Iraq whether they think they are in combat, pilots who face the real threat of having to eject over ISIS-held territory. I'm not advocating an army division or combat elements on the ground, but it is foolhardy for the Obama administration to tie the hands and so firmly rule out the possibility of air controllers and special operators on the ground to direct air strikes and advise fighter forces. It sends the wrong message to our troops, to the enemy, and to partners.

Furthermore, if Congress does authorize the training and equipping of -- of the Syrian moderate opposition, and then pushes them into combat without advisers on the ground, that effort is most likely to fail. And we still don't have the answers to the most important and fundamental questions about what we're ultimately trying to accomplish, such as what does a defeated or destroyed ISIS look like.

Finally, I hope we get answers today, not only to the president's strategy, but also about the current state of our military residents. General Dempsey, nothing significant has changed when you warned on February 12th of last year, not this year, that our military is on a path where the force may become, quote, "so degraded and so unready that it would be immoral to use force," unquote.

With six years of massive budget cuts and another round of defense sequestrations on the horizon, we're still on that path. Despite this, the administration is still calling on our military to support its pivot to Asia, bolster our European allies against a growing Russian threat, successfully trans -- transition our missions in Afghanistan support, the response to the Ebola -- and by the way, we hear this morning another 3,000 troops are going to be going over -- over there -- and now to launch a military operations against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

Unlike what the president seems to believe, you can't have it both ways. You can't slash our defense budget on one hand while expecting our military to do it on the other. If we want our military men and women to go into harm's way and defend this country, we need to give them the training, the tools, and the support they need to succeed.

Without a ready, capable military, the president's imperfect strategy will remain what has become the trademark of this administration: a lot of tough talk that isn't backed by meaningful action.

I was hoping we could debate these broadly important issues within DAA, but we have not been able to do that. So it looks like, Mr. Chairman, that this is it. Thank you.

LEVIN: Thank one Senator Inhofe. Secretary Hagel.

HAGEL: Chairman Levin, Senator Inhofe, members of the committee, Chairman Dempsey and I very much appreciate the opportunity...

PROTESTER: (OFF-MIKE)

LEVIN: OK. Would you -- we're asking you again to please sit down, and if not, we're gonna ask you to leave.

PROTESTER: (OFF-MIKE)

LEVIN: No, thank you. Thank you for -- would you please now leave?

PROTESTER: (OFF-MIKE)

LEVIN: Would you please now leave?

PROTESTER: (OFF-MIKE)

LEVIN: I'm asking you to please leave.

PROTESTER: (OFF-MIKE)

LEVIN: You're acting very war-like yourself.

PROTESTER: No more war.

LEVIN: Would you please leave?

PROTESTER: (OFF-MIKE) We do not want war. No military solution to this. No more war. No more war. No military solution.

LEVIN: Thank you. Secretary Hagel.

HAGEL: Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, Chairman Dempsey and I very much appreciate the opportunity this morning to discuss the president's strategy to degrade and ultimately defeat ISIL.

As you know, you all know, today President Obama's in Atlanta meeting with CDC officials regarding the Ebola crisis and then will travel tonight to Tampa to receive a briefing from the commander of U.S. Central Command, General Austin, on operational plans to implement his ISIL strategy. I'll join the president tomorrow in Tampa for that briefing.

The Defense Department civilian and military leaders are in complete agreement that the United States and our allies and partners must take action against ISIL and that the president's strategy is the right approach.

However, as President Obama has repeatedly made clear, American military power alone cannot, will not eradicate the threats posed by ISIL to the United States, our allies, and our friends and partners in the region.

Iraq's continued political progress toward a more inclusive and representative government in its programs of reform and reconciliation will be critical to achieve the progress required. We believe that new Iraqi minister, Prime Minister Abadi is committed to bringing all Iraqis together against ISIL.

To support him and the Iraqi people in their fight, the coalition will need to use all its instruments of power. We intend to use all of those instruments of power, military, law enforcement, economic, diplomatic, and intelligence in coordination with all the countries in the region.

To succeed, this strategy will also require a strong partnership between our executive branch and our Congress. The president has made it a priority to consult with congressional leadership on the ISIL challenge, as have Vice President Biden, Secretary Kerry and many senior members of the administration.

I have appreciated the opportunities I've had to discuss the president's strategy with many members of this committee and other members of the Senate and the House over the last couple of weeks. We will continue to consult closely with Congress as this campaign moves forward.