Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

Dempsey Maybe Opening Doors to Ground Troops; Peshmerga Forces Push Back Against ISIS; Interview with Rep. Peter King; Vote Expected Tomorrow On Syria Funding; Fighting Ebola; ISIS Magazine; Interview with Sen. Lamar Alexander

Aired September 16, 2014 - 13:00   ET

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

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, I'm Wolf Blitzer reporting from Washington. We begin with a major claim by ISIS as top Pentagon brass testify about the U.S. military mission to destroy the terror group.

Let's get the very latest. ISIS now claiming to have shot down a Syrian military jet fighter, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, the plane was carrying out air strikes on the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa when it was shot down. U.S. military central command says an air strike near Baghdad destroyed an ISIS position that had been firing on Iraqi forces. Officials say it's the first strike in what they describe as the expanded effort to help Iraqi fighters battle ISIS.

And defense secretary, Chuck Hagel, and the joint chiefs' chairman, General Martin Dempsey, warned Congress today about the threat posed by ISIS. Both Hagel and Dempsey testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Did the joint chiefs' chairman open the door to the possibility of U.S. ground forces in this fight against ISIS? Listen to what General Dempsey had to say during the Senate Committee hearing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEN. MARTIN DEMPSEY, JOINT CHIEFS CHAIRMAN: Our military advisers will help the Iraqis conduct campaign planning, arrange for enabler and logistic support and coordinate our coalition activities. If we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraq troops on attacks against specific ISIL targets, I'll recommend that to the president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: It certainly sounded like he was opening that door. Let's bring in our Chief National Security Correspondent Jim Sciutto. Is there a contradiction emerging now, be it slight, between what the Pentagon is saying about combat forces on the ground as opposed to the president?

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Maybe in semantic terms. But if there was doubt that this would -- it might be General Dempsey or the Pentagon freelancing, keeping the option open, an option that the president doesn't want. General Dempsey went on to say, in questioning, that the president left open this possibility with him. Have a listen to this sound.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DEMPSEY: Well, at this point, he's -- his stated policy is that we will not have U.S. ground forces in direct combat. So, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Including operators in j-tech and embedded on the ground.

DEMPSEY: That's correct. But he has told me, as well, to come back to him on a case-by-case basis.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Come back to him on a case-by-case basis. So, the president told his commander that, listen, if you see the need on the ground, come back to me and ask for it. And, you know, there's a reason that the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, in his public comments, that was in the third paragraph, that statement we played earlier of his opening statement that he raises that possibility, it means that the chairman of the joint chiefs wants to keep that option open and may, indeed, go to the president with that request.

BLITZER: That's, obviously, if it's in his opening statement, not in response to a question, very carefully vetted in an opening statement like that before the Senate Armed Services Committee. There was another intriguing moment as well when he suggested the U.S. mission was to destroy, destroy ISIS in Iraq but to degrade ISIS in Syria. First time we heard that distinction.

SCIUTTO: It is because remember a couple of weeks ago, you had that presidential moment when he said, in one sentence, that we were going to destroy and defeat ISIS. But the next one, he said, make it a manageable problem. The administration, in the days that followed and in their speech to the nation, said, no, the goal is to destroy ISIS. He didn't make a distinction based on which side of the border he was talking about. Now, you have here saying, well, destroy in Iraq, disrupt inside Syria which is, frankly, an acknowledgment of the circumstances on the ground.

In Iraq, you have more than 300,000 ground troops already with Iraqi forces and Kurdish forces. You don't have anything like that presence on the ground in Syria, plus a lot messier situation there. It's, in effect, acknowledging that, listen, you know, we could possibly chase them out of Iraq but the idea of getting them down to the last fighter in Syria is something that this administration knows that it can't promise. And, frankly, this is another one of those cases, and you and I have talked about this, that this is -- it's a perpetual war, right? Because you can't promise to completely eliminate the problem. You can control it.

BLITZER: Well, the U.S. has been trying to destroy Al Qaeda now for 13 years.

SCIUTTO: Exactly.

BLITZER: The U.S. has degraded Al Qaeda's capabilities but it's still in business around the world, --

SCIUTTO: Exactly.

BLITZER: -- as we all know. What about this notion that the president wants a vote, $500 million to help train and fund the moderate Syrian opposition rebels, but he doesn't want, necessarily, a vote, in terms of authorizing the entire campaign. That came up during the hearing.

SCIUTTO: It did -- it did come up. And what's interesting about this is that the president doesn't want a vote but the fact is that many members of Congress don't want a vote. Some do. Some do want their chance. But there's a perception that, in reality, they don't want to be -- to go on the record which could be a very controversial decision and could conceivably come back to haunt them. But that said, the president believes he has the authority to act in Iraq. It's training and equipping these advisers that he needs -- he believes he needs a vote on, particularly when it -- when it relates to Syria. So, you're going to have to have some sort of vote.

BLITZER: We'll see what that vote is. It could come in the House as early as tomorrow to train and equip the moderate Syrian rebels, half a billion dollars. All right, Jim, thanks very much.

SCIUTTO: Thank you.

BLITZER: A U.S. air strike targeting ISIS forces just 22 miles from the Iraqi capital of Baghdad. This appears to be the closest air strikes have come to the Iraqi capital since the U.S. began, this is the air campaign, against the terrorist group. Other air strikes destroyed six ISIS vehicles near Sinjar in the north.

Elsewhere in northern Iraq, Peshmerga fighters, they are now on the offensive. CNN's Anna Coren has that part of the story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ANNA COREN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: We're near the township of Hafan Shan (ph), about 30 kilometers east of Mosul in northern Iraq. And as you can see from the black plumes of smoke behind me, it has been the scene of an intense battle between the Peshmerga and ISIS militants.

Now, just before dawn, the Kurdish forces launched a ground offensive to clear out five townships under the control of the Islamic extremists. In regaining this territory, the Peshmerga are pushing closer to a strategic bridge that was blown out by ISIS a month ago. Now, it's a vital link between Erbil, the capital of Kurdistan, and Mosul, Iraq's second largest city, which has been an ISIS stronghold since June. So, the Peshmerga need to take back control of this area, rebuild the bridge in preparation for the next phase of the operation, the battle for Mosul.

Well, U.S. air strikes have been critical in today's operation, for hours, they circled the skies above us before hitting enemy targets and vehicles. Well, the U.S. is refusing to make direct hits on towns and villages, fearing civilian casualties. However, the Peshmerga tell us the local population has fled and that only ISIS militants are here.

Earlier, we saw the remnants of a suicide bomber in an oil tanker packed with explosives driving towards the Peshmerga. But before he could reach them, he was hit by an RPG causing a huge plume of smoke.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: And Anna's joining us now live from Erbil in northern Iraq. Good display of force from these Peshmerga fighters, Anna, driving ISIS back from what? Let's talk a little bit about what happens next. What are you hearing?

COREN: Well, certainly, they are driving them out of these townships and these villages out in these open plains with the help of those U.S. air strikes. As I say, they circled for hours, Wolf. We were there before dawn. We left late this afternoon and they were still up in the air providing that critical cover to give those ground forces the momentum they needed to take the fights to ISIS. But, you know, ISIS is digging in. They fight to the death. And as you heard, you know, there was a suicide bomber packing this oil tanker with explosives, driving it to the Peshmerga line. Thankfully, he was taken out by an RPG. But as he were leaving, they had managed to get down to that bridge. And that entire road, Wolf, was just laid with explosives and IEDs.

I mean, this is what ISIS does. It lays these land mines in the hope of creating as many casualties as possible. But certainly there is that momentum to move towards Mosul. Speaking to the man in charge, Dr. Rosh (ph), who is coordinating with the Americans, he is hoping that that battle will be sooner rather than later.

However, the problem is, Wolf, as we know, it's Iraq's second largest city. It is an ISIS stronghold, has been since June but it's densely populated, a city of 2 million people. It will be urban warfare. U.S. air strikes will be completely ineffective because they won't want those mass casualties. So, this is where, perhaps, the ground forces, the foreign ground forces, will need to come in to help the Iraqis, to help the Kurds and to also help this Sunni force that they are trying to build. As we know, Wolf, Mosul is a -- is a Sunni city and they will need Sunni forces to help fight to kick ISIS out.

BLITZER: Well, very quickly, Anna, is the Peshmerga, the fighters, the Kurdish fighters in the north that you've just been with them, are they getting any real support, any real help from the Iraqi military?

COREN: That's an interesting question, Wolf. Not that we have seen. Obviously, we were out at Mosul Dam when that operation was underway. We saw 200 Iraqi commandos who were quite effective with that campaign. But otherwise, every single time that we have gone to the front line with the Peshmerga, no, we have not seen the Iraqi security forces at all. It's always a Peshmerga operation. They are the boots on the ground, at least up here in northern Iraq, taking the fight to ISIS -- Wolf.

BLITZER: And this is such a sad, pitiful part of the story. The Iraqi military trained and funded by the United States, armed by the United States over the past decade, simply MIA, Missing in Action, in terms of protecting Iraq and Iraqis from ISIS.

Anna Coren on the front lines, be careful over there, Anna. We'll check back with you later.

So, is the U.S. at war right now? Will there be boots on the ground, combat forces, all part of the strategy of dealing with ISIS in Syria? Would it involve simply training rebels? What's going on? As you know, the president has asked Congress to approve legislation providing half a billion dollars to go ahead and train and arm those so-called moderate Syrian rebels. Critics say the president's plan is lacking on several major details. The House, by the way, is set to vote on the funding and that vote could come as early as tomorrow.

New York Republican Congressman Peter King is a key member of Congress. He's joining us from Capitol Hill right now. I assume you're going to vote for that half a billion dollars, is that right, Congressman?

REP. PETER KING (R), NEW YORK: Yes, I am, Wolf. I'll be voting for it. I'm not entirely supportive of, you know, what the president laid out so far. But I do believe that it's important we go forward. So, yes, I will vote yes.

BLITZER: Why are the Iraqi military personnel -- why is the Iraqi government in Baghdad refusing to protect huge, huge parts of Iraq and to protect Iraqi citizens?

KING: I would say -- well, first of all, there's no excuse for it. I would say, right now, the Iraqi army is in a bit of shambles. This results, I believe, primarily from when Maliki was there and he had put, basically, his goons in charge of various battalions and the divisions. And they were incompetent. These were, basically, Shiites leading a Sunni army and the army just came apart which is we saw that happen when ISIS moved in on them and they just ran.

Now, I do think that the army can be put back together. I think if -- in talking to people in the military, we believe there is a basic form of an Iraqi army there. And -- but I think it's going to take U.S. leadership. We will have to have, I believe, some Americans embedded with the Iraqi army. And if I can go back, I think this is all part of when the U.S. disengaged entirely from Iraq, we lost any control of influence over the Iraqi army.

BLITZER: I've spoken with several Iraqi Kurds, influential Kurds, and I've spoken with several Iraqi Sunnis who really aren't very upbeat about this new Iraqi prime minister, Haider Al Abadi. They say, basically, he may put on a little bit better front but he's more of the same, comes from the same political party as Nuri Al Maliki. And they're not very confident he's going to do much. What are you hearing?

KING: Well, you know, no one's perfect when it comes to Iraq. But I think he will be a significantly -- a significant improvement over Maliki. And also, I believe, now that the U.S. has re-engaged in Iraq, we will have more influence over a body to -- in fact, it was compel him to do the right thing. We lost all influence over Maliki when we withdrew. And so, the fact that we will be there, to a large extent, Abadi, his survival is going to depend on U.S. assistance. We will have more of a say over Abadi than we had over Maliki over the last -- over the last three years. And I also believe that, again, if we can get American forces, Americans embedded with the Iraqi army, that will help coordinate operations between the Peshmerga and the Israel -- and the Iraqi army.

BLITZER: But you realize, Congressman, that that would be combat boots on the ground which the president has ruled out?

KING: Well, we already have almost 2,000 troops over there. I mean, that's more -- that's three times more troops than Eisenhower had in Vietnam when he left office. So, I mean, the fact is we do have boots on the ground. I don't see, right now, the need to have combat troops in effect of actually taking part in combat operations. But I do believe we will -- we'll have to have Special Forces and we will have to have American military embedded with the Iraqi military for the purpose of leadership and coordination. And the president, I think, should be more upfront with the American people in telling them that.

BLITZER: And this notion that, as Chairman Dempsey testified today before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the mission is to destroy ISIS in Iraq but to degrade ISIS in Syria. I hadn't heard that until today. What's your reaction?

KING: To me, that's a step back. And that's one of the criticisms I've had of the president's policies. He takes one step forward and one step sideways. And this is another example of that. I mean, last week, he made a -- I thought he gave the clear impression that we were going after ISIS in both Iraq and Syria. And now, if you have two standards, it almost gives them somewhat of a sanctuary in Syria. There's a difference between destroying and degrading or disrupting. And so, to me, if I were in ISIS, I would look upon Syria as being a -- almost a privileged sanctuary, you know, take an attack from, do what they have to do in Iraq and then realizing that they won't be subjected to the same type of air attacks in Syria. I think it's a mistake. Even that were the president's policy, I don't know why you announce that.

BLITZER: U.S. has been trying to destroy Al Qaeda now for 13 years since 911. Certainly, the U.S. has degraded Al Qaeda's capabilities, but Al Qaeda remains in business, unfortunately, as we all know. Congressman Peter King, thanks very much for joining us.

KING: Thank you, Wolf. And we have to stay after them. This is going to be a long, hard war. This is not going to be over soon, for many years ahead.

BLITZER: Well, if anyone thinks this can be resolved in three years, I think, is kidding themselves.

KING: No.

BLITZER: This is going to be a long, long, brutal conflict just as the war against Al Qaeda --

KING: As John Kennedy --

BLITZER: -- has been a long war.

KING: -- as John Kennedy -- as John Kennedy said, a long twilight struggle.

BLITZER: All right, Congressman, thanks very much.

Believe it or not, ISIS has now documented its brutality, once again this time in the form of a magazine. We're taking a closer look. That's coming up.

But first, one U.S. senator says the United States needs to take the threat of Ebola as seriously as the threat of ISIS. We're going to talk to Senator Lamar Alexander about his comments. That's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: President Obama has called the Ebola outbreak a national security crisis. Later today, he'll announce U.S. steps to combat the epidemic in West Africa. It will include military assistance, medical assistance and millions and millions of U.S. dollars.

Let's bring in our pentagon correspondent, Barbara Starr. Also joining us the senior Republican on the Senate's health committee, Lamar Alexander.

Senator, I'm going to come to you in a moment. A little background, though, from Barbara.

Barbara, the president's been criticized, as you know, for not doing more to stem this outbreak. Tell us what the U.S. government is about to announce the president heading to the CDC in Atlanta.

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, there will be a good deal of additional activity by civilian federal health authorities, the CDC. There will be assistance from the USAID, from the State Department. But here at the Pentagon, what they are talking about is the possibility of sending up to 3,000 U.S. troops to help with this growing health crisis in West Africa, a good deal of concern that this virus could mutate, could grow and begin to spread even more rapidly than it is.

Here's what we're looking at. Setting up a U.S. military command headquarters in Liberia, in West Africa. A U.S. Army general to be put in charge of that. Perhaps, as I said, as many as 3,000 troops.

Also looking at constructing up to 17 or so Ebola treatment clinics. And to help staff those, helping train local health care workers, maybe try and train, they hope, up to 500 health care workers a week to deal with this crisis.

Right now, they are on the backside of it. This thing is still growing, still a very serious problem, killing people across West Africa. What the U.S. wants to do is step in with everything it can and try and stop it there, get it under control and keep it from spreading even further.

Wolf.

BLITZER: Yes, that death rate is rising exponentially right now.

You know, the American public, Barbara, hears that 3,000 U.S. military personnel will be heading to West Africa to deal with this Ebola threat and they're worried. How will these 3,000 men and women going to protect themselves from getting Ebola? Will they be wearing all sorts of suits? And what about when they come back? Will they have to go into some sort of quarantine for a while? Will they have to avoid dealing with anyone, including their families? These are serious concerns that are already being raised.

STARR: I think everyone's very concerned about that, Wolf. People don't know a lot about Ebola outside of the public health community and it's a scary thing. What U.S. military officials have told me is the way this is going to be structured, U.S. troops are not expected to come into direct contact with Ebola patients, not expected to provide direct medical treatment to them. They will be working to set up this infrastructure and help train local people to step in and deal with it.

But, look, nothing, they will tell you, is risk-free. So the U.S. military follows the CDC guidelines. People are given -- the troops will be given all the public health guidelines to keep themselves as healthy as possible, as safe as possible, should they inadvertently or unexpectedly or unknowingly come into contact with someone who does have Ebola, that will be something that they will all be trained on before they go, Wolf.

BLITZER: This is a dangerous assignment. I -- almost like a combat assignment. I hope they're going to be getting extra combat pay when they head over to Africa to deal with this. Barbara, thanks very much.

Let's bring in Senator Alexander right now.

Senator, I know you're very concerned about this Ebola epidemic. Earlier today you said it was as serious a threat to the United States as the danger of ISIS. Tell us why.

SEN. LAMAR ALEXANDER (R), TENNESSEE: Well, because it's spread so rapidly and because it kills so quickly. There's no vaccine. There's no cure. There are 5,000 cases mainly isolated to three West African countries. But half those cases are new in the last three weeks. Now, you don't have to be very good at math to figure out what happens if those cases double every three weeks. And the top official who I've talked with, the disease officials and Samantha Powers at the United Nations both say that it could be the most deadly epidemic in modern times in the world. We know how to control it. But it's such an urgent problem that it requires the kind of urgent response that the president is talking about today.

BLITZER: You support the dispatch of these 3,000 U.S. military personnel to Africa to deal with it? ALEXANDER: Yes, I do. And I think every American would if they

understood the risk. This infection spreads quickly. Usually a single person might infect 20 other people. Can only be transmitted today by bodily fluids, usually from a sick person who has symptoms or from a dead person. And -- but - but that sort of expansion's so rapidly and it's very deadly. Half of the people who have contracted it have died.

BLITZER: How worried are you that these U.S. military personnel could themselves be endangered by heading over to that region?

ALEXANDER: Well, they should not be because we know what to do about it. Basically you find an infected person and you isolate them. And one of the reasons for the money that Congress will approve this week and that the president's asked for is to provide the protective clothing and the kind of structures and buildings so as soon as you find an infected person, they're isolated there.

We have testifying before the Senate this afternoon a doctor who contracted Ebola doing humanitarian work in west Africa. He's recovered. He's back testifying before the Senate today.

So we can control it. We've done that before. The problem is, it's spreading so rapidly. And if it gets out of control, the single infected traveler say gets to another country and infects 20 people, who infects 20 people, who infects 20 people, you can see what the concern is.

BLITZER: Yes, I agree with you, this is an enormous crisis right now, this Ebola virus. But here's the - here's some of the reaction I've been getting on Twitter and elsewhere. A lot of Americans are saying, why does the United States always need to take the lead in these kinds of matters? Where's the United Nations? Where's the World Health Organization? Where are the Europeans? Why aren't they doing more?

ALEXANDER: They should be doing more. But we're big and powerful and we - you know, if there's a nuclear disaster in Japan, if there's an earthquake or a tsunami somewhere around the world, we usually end up helping. And we have missionaries and we have humanitarian workers around the world. And sometimes the United States military is the only agency that can accurately react. Actually have an account in the Defense Department to do that. And we want to just be selfish about it. One infected traveler from West Africa who flies to the United States and exposes 20 people could begin to spread the disease here. So this is a threat to people around the world. It's also a threat to us here. And the sooner we get control of it, the better and the less expensive it will be.

BLITZER: And we'll, of course, have live coverage of the president's announcement of the new U.S. steps to deal with this Ebola threat later today on CNN.

Senator, thanks very much for joining us.

ALEXANDER: Thank you.

BLITZER: ISIS has been making effective use, very effective use, of social media. Now the terror group is expanding its media reach. Guess what? It has a brand-new magazine. There you see the cover. Brian Todd is taking a closer look when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHUCK HAGEL, DEFENSE SECRETARY: You could very well find Jordan go down as a - as the country that we know it today. I think Saudi Arabia could well be beyond just threatened, their oil fields. I think the expansion of where this could go in the Middle East, dominating oil production. Lebanon is also in a very tentative state. Libya is in chaos. Everywhere you look in the Middle East, there is trouble.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: The secretary of defense, Chuck Hagel, testifying just a little while ago before the Senate Armed Services Committee. ISIS' reach is spreading and it's there in a new print edition. But you won't exactly find it on the shelf at your local bookstore. The ISIS terror group is now expanding its reach in the media by publishing, get this, its own magazine, complete with lots of pictures of mutilated bodies. Brian Todd is here with me watching this part of the story.

This is a whole new part of their social media campaign to recruit and expand their propaganda.

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It is, Wolf. This is part of the ISIS propaganda and strategic messaging machine. It is called "Dabiq." Dabiq is a word in Arabic that is - symbolizes the - it's the name of a town in northern Syria where there was a big battle in the 16th century where the last caliphate was established, but it's also where they envision a future battle between Muslims and non-Muslims for basically control of the world. This magazine is a very polished, professional-looking, glossy, online, three editions published since early July and it's really kind of apocalyptic --

BLITZER: We're seeing some of it - we're seeing some of "Dabiq" right there.

TODD: Yes, it's got these apocalyptic images like the flood and other things like that. And I can kind of come back here to our wall and show you a little bit of this "Dabiq." Some of the images here are interesting. Well, we could advance it. Now we can advance it. There we go.