Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

Suspect Arrested in Missing Student Case; Are Americans Doing Enough to Stay Safe?; Air Strikes Resume in Eastern Syria; Obama Criticized by NYT for Syria Strikes

Aired September 24, 2014 - 22:00   ET

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


ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening. This is CNN TONIGHT. I'm Don Lemon.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Don, great to be with you. I'm Alisyn Camerota.

And we do start with breaking news, new airstrikes targeting ISIS positions in Eastern Syria going after the money, U.S. and coalition warplanes pounding oil installations that ISIS uses to finance its operations.

LEMON: And Britain's prime minister is recalling Parliament to seek approval for the United Kingdom to join the airstrikes. Also, the United Nations Security Council in a special session led by President Obama unanimously passes an anti-terror resolution. The president says those words must be matched by action.

CAMEROTA: But, Don, is there already an unintended consequence to these airstrikes? Is it possible that by fighting ISIS the coalition is actually strengthening al Qaeda? Our terrorism experts will explain how that works.

LEMON: And as we saw in the CNN special town hall, former President Bill Clinton says he agrees with the decision to launch airstrikes in Syria. We're going to have what else he said.

CAMEROTA: And there is also breaking news in the case of that missing University of Virginia student, Hannah Graham. Police all the way in Galveston, Texas, have taken Jesse Matthew into custody. He is the suspect wanted on suspicion of abduction. So, we will have a full report with all of the latest for you.

LEMON: But we're going to begin this hour with the breaking news, a new round of airstrikes against ISIS late today targeting oil refineries it controls in Syria.

I want to go straight to CNN's Jim Acosta, our senior White House correspondent. He's at the United Nations for us tonight.

So, Jim, give us the very latest on today's airstrikes. JIM ACOSTA, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Don, the

Obama administration is making no illusions here in terms of what this mission was about today.

These airstrikes were really going after the funding, the financing of ISIS, hitting those oil fields and those oil refineries in Eastern Syria. That has been a big part of the money that goes to ISIS. And as you heard from the president today, Don, this was not a leading from behind speech. He was really taking full ownership of this coalition that he is leading in the fight against ISIS.

You heard at one point during the speech the president warning ISIS fighters to leave the battlefield, essentially foreshadowing the strikes that took place later on in the day. The president going on to describe ISIS as a cancer that the world must eradicate. Here's more of what the president had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There can be no reasoning, no negotiation with this brand of evil. The only language understood by killers like this is the language of force. So the United States of America will work with a broad coalition to dismantle this network of death.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: And the president continued those themes throughout the day. He met with the Iraqi prime minister, the new Iraqi prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, and at one point saying in some remarks with the new Iraqi prime minister that this will not be a short fight against ISIS, but that this is really just the beginning.

And then later on in the day, he presided over the U.N. Security Council session on foreign fighters, getting that Security Council session to adopt a resolution trying to crack down on foreign fighters traveling from the United States and the West to those ISIS battlefields in Iraq and Syria. And really he is going to be sort of taking this multinational cooperative theme into this final day here at the United Nations.

He will be meeting with a conference of foreign leaders tomorrow to tackle the outbreak of Ebola in Africa. He is really looking at the same sort of coalition building effort there, Don, to deal with that problem as well. It is a -- it is a recurring theme with this president. He wants to lead coalitions in just about every fight he is dealing with right now, Don.

LEMON: Very busy day for the president. Thank you very much, Jim Acosta, at the United Nations for us.

CAMEROTA: Don, so let's talk more about the president's address at the U.N. and the challenge he issued to the Muslim world.

We also have some video to show you that was shot secretly inside the ISIS-controlled city of Raqqa, Syria. It shows what life is like under terrorist rule. It is very grim. Wait until you see this.

LEMON: Yes, can't wait to talk about that.

But we're joined now by Fareed Zakaria, host of CNN's "FAREED ZAKARIA GPS," and Bobby Ghosh, CNN global affairs analyst and managing editor of Quartz.

Fareed, I want to start with you. I want to talk about the president's speech today at the U.N. As we were watching, I said, he seemed more forceful, a little bit sterner, a little bit more confident. You said President Obama's UNGA speech was eloquent, but is the strategy coherent?

That was your question. Expand on this. Do you find a flaw in his strategy?

FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN WORLD AFFAIRS ANALYST: This is the moment when American presidents look great. This is when they order military action. The United States has the most awesome military in the world.

Its firepower is unbelievable. And you begin to see the bombs go off. It will -- all incredibly impressive, and rightfully so. The problem what we know is from Iraq, from Libya, from many of these examples is, to get actual progress on the ground, to get lasting results, you need politics on the ground to also go and work in your way.

Think of Libya. We got rid of Gadhafi and you ended up with chaos. Think of Iraq. We got rid of Saddam. The fact that you have this very impressive firepower that is being ordered doesn't mean you have solved the strategic problem on the ground. The strategic problem on the ground is this. You're attacking ISIS in Syria, which is going to strengthen the Assad regime, the Russians, and the Iranians, who are the sponsors of the Assad regime.

Meanwhile, you say that your big goal is to in some way, or the other oppose the Iranians, the Assad regime and the Russians. How do you make sense of this? How will you find some middle course where you are attacking ISIS, but not helping ISIS' principal opponent, which is the Assad regime?

If you look at Iraq, we say we are going to make this work because we will have an Iraqi government that will include all the Iraqis. But it doesn't. You can say it. But it hasn't actually happened.

LEMON: You are saying, how do you do all these things? You said that you actually think that the president is right in leading from behind? What do you mean by that? On this issue?

(CROSSTALK)

ZAKARIA: I think that this is fundamentally an Arab cancer. It needs to be solved by Arabs. We should be very deeply involved. We should be helping, organizing the coalition.

It is not such a bad thing if Saudi Arabia and Jordan -- you know, one of the things -- are in the lead. One of the things the president said which I thought was very eloquent, the most eloquent part of his speech, was when he took the Muslim world to task and said, you guys, you have to denounce the stuff. You have to frontally confront it.

I called it his Sister Souljah moment, because like Bill Clinton he had credibility to take the issue on. Nobody is going to think he is anti-Muslim, right? He can say, look, I'm telling you as a friend you guys have got a serious cancer in your midst. Deal with it. Don't deny it. He called out the Saudis, which was great. He said, you want to profit from globalization by selling oil to us. Then you want to use the proceeds to fund Wahhabism. He didn't put it in quite those words, but the implication was very clear.

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: We got it.

CAMEROTA: Bobby, as you know, Erin Burnett sat down with Bill Clinton for town hall meeting that just ended. She asked him what he thought of the airstrikes and if he supports them. And here was his response.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think what ISIS was trying to do was to sucker us into putting a lot of soldiers on the ground so they could shift the blame from themselves to us for all the violence in the area.

And what we learned repeatedly is that when the Sunni tribal leaders who are not militant and not twisting Islam for political objectives are willing to fight, they can reclaim their country. And we should help them do it. But not a fight we can win for them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: Do the airstrikes help them reclaim their country?

BOBBY GHOSH, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: It gives them hope. At the moment, that's about all that these airstrikes can do.

It can stop do two things. It can stop the momentum of ISIS. It can change the narrative about ISIS. So far, ISIS has been seen as both an irresistible force taking all this territory and an immovable object, holding on to that territory and refusing to cede it.

These airstrikes, and followed by some ground operations by the Iraqis at least begin to change the narrative. It shows that ISIS can be hurt. If that narrative takes hold, then some of these tribes that are allied with ISIS hopefully begin to ask themselves, should we really be in alliance with a group that is now facing the wrath of the world? Do we really want to be part of that coalition, or should we find a way to pull out?

That's the moment when the Iraqi political system is supposed to go to these people and say, listen. We will give you a seat at the table. We would like to address your grievances. We would like to give you more autonomy. That part, as Fareed said, has not yet begun to happen.

The bombing campaign has got limited objectives and can only yield limited results. A lot of other things have to happen, have to happen in the right time for this to be a success.

CAMEROTA: Bobby, we want to show you this very chilling video that CNN has been given. It's, we understand, secretly taped by a young woman, maybe even a girl, walking through the streets of Raqqa. That is an ISIS-controlled city and what that landscape looks like now.

You see black everywhere. You see the black ISIS flag. And you see even women here carrying these what look like AK-47s. What's going on in the video?

GHOSH: You are seeing the presence of ISIS as a policing force in the city.

This is a city of 350,000, 400,000 people,a large city in Northern Syria. And this woman is incredibly brave to be walking around even with a concealed camera, because if she's caught, the punishment would be brutal, and swift, and could lead to death. She would be accused of spying. She would be accused of working for the West, and that would be the end of her.

We are getting a glimpse of, as you see here, some of these people are in uniform. Others are in mufti. As you pointed out, there was what seems to be a woman carrying an...

(CROSSTALK)

CAMEROTA: Why would she be carrying a weapon?

GHOSH: Well, she's part of the force that...

CAMEROTA: Patrols.

(CROSSTALK)

GHOSH: Patrols. She's supposed to look out for women who are breaking the rules.

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: There is a woman who didn't -- someone stopped her and said your face isn't covered properly.

GHOSH: The woman who is carrying the camera.

LEMON: We have been talking a lot about caliphate, right? That word has been -- is that what a caliphate looks like?

GHOSH: No. That is not what the old caliphate looks like. That's what these people and their perverse interpretation of what a caliphate ought to look like.

LEMON: Last night, we talked a lot about your interview with Rouhani today. And you said when you spoke to him that you were going to ask him certain things about a political solution. What did he say to you?

ZAKARIA: Well, the first thing I should say is this was an event at New America Foundation. And I am a trustee of the New America Foundation. Let's just -- CNN rules require that I disclose that.

He was less willing to -- you know, with leaders at his level, what I find is sometimes it is day to day the mood is changed. I saw him on -- I guess it was Tuesday or Monday. And he was talking about how there was possible political cooperation that the United States could have with Iran. And there were areas like in Afghanistan and perhaps in Iraq.

Today, he was much more circumspect. He said, first, we have got to solve the nuclear issue. If we can't solve the nuclear issue, nothing else is possible. In a sense, he was sort of signaling to the United States in particular, I think, this is our ask. You have got to do the nuclear deal. If that happens, he did hint that political solutions in Iraq might be furthered.

In Syria, remember, one of the things they could solve for the United States and for everybody in Syria is a path to a political settlement that includes the opposition and Assad and some kind of brokered settlement. They're the only one whose have influence.

The odd thing here is, we are trying to have an effect on the ground. The only guys who have influence in Iraq and Syria really are the Iranians. They're the one people we don't talk to.

LEMON: Yes. Yes. Appreciate it.

CAMEROTA: Yes, gentlemen, thanks so much.

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: Thank you.

You can see Fareed's interview with President Rouhani of Iran. It airs Sunday on "FAREED ZAKARIA GPS" 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. Eastern right here on CNN.

Fareed and Bobby Ghosh, again, thank you very much.

CAMEROTA: Now to our breaking news tonight. It could be a major break in the case of the missing University of Virginia student Hannah Graham.

Sheriffs in Galveston County, Texas, have taken Jesse Matthew into custody. He of course is the suspect who was wanted on suspicion of her abduction.

CNN's Jean Casarez is live in Charlottesville, Virginia, with more.

Jean, great to see you. Tell us how the capture happened. JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Want to tell you, first of all, I just got off the phone with the Galveston County jail. He has just been booked in the jail. This is Jesse Matthew, and he was found in the Galveston, Texas, on the beach camping in a tent.

Now, we're learning exactly how this came down,according to a judge in the Galveston area who told KPRC Television, that a suspicious call came into the deputy's sheriff department that someone was on the beach and camping out. So, a sheriff went down there and ran the license plate and found the license plate was hot. That's when they approached him and arrested him.

He did not resist at all. This was at 3:30 this afternoon local time. But they stayed out in the field with him for quite a while. He didn't come in to the jail until 8:00 tonight, I was told. And they didn't book him right away because they were questioning him.

Remember, this is a missing person's case. The big question is, where is Hannah Graham? He was, according to police, the last person to see her before she disappeared 12 days ago. Now, here's what is going to happen. Tomorrow morning at 7:00, there will be a court proceeding in Galveston.

And this will be an extradition proceeding. And one can waive their extradition and come back to Virginia or one can fight it. At the same time, Virginia law enforcement is going down to Texas. And the next step, I think, will be in the hands of Jesse Graham (sic), because either he will be in Texas and fight this or be on his way back to Virginia.

CAMEROTA: I'm sure those Virginia authorities want to ask him a lot of questions as well. Very, very quickly, Jean, do we know when those forensic tests of his car and apartment come back?

CASAREZ: The Virginia Department of Science tells me that, later this week, they should have the results. They are still testing these items, and it's DNA profiles that they're looking for. It's very sensitive testing and it takes time.

CAMEROTA: All right, Jean Casarez, thanks so much for that important update for us.

LEMON: Lots more to got to here tonight.

We know there is bad blood between ISIS and other terrorist groups. But by launching airstrikes to degrade and destroy ISIS, is the United States and its coalition partners strengthening al Qaeda and other terrorists? We get answers from terrorism experts.

CAMEROTA: And the military campaign against ISIS and the Khorasan group is already costing American taxpayers millions of dollars. Should the U.S. force Arab countries to pick up the tab? We will explore that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Welcome back.

Our top story this evening, new airstrikes launched today, this time on oil facilities run by ISIS in Eastern Syria.

By targeting ISIS, are America -- are America and its allies actually helping al Qaeda and other terror groups. That's the question.

CAMEROTA: How does that work?

LEMON: Yes.

CAMEROTA: Let's get some answers from Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and senior fellow at George Washington University's Homeland Security Policy Institute. Also with us is Paul Cruickshank, CNN terrorism analyst and co-author of "Agent Storm: My Life Inside al Qaeda and the CIA."

Gentlemen, thanks so much for being here.

Daveed, I want to start with you. If you weaken ISIS, you strengthen al Qaeda? How does that work?

DAVEED GARTENSTEIN-ROSS, FOUNDATION FOR THE DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES: Because the two of them are competitor organizations.

ISIS was kicked out of al Qaeda at the beginning of February. Since then, it has pretty aggressively made bids to get affiliates of al Qaeda and others within the organization to join it. In fact, some analysts believe that it has surpassed al Qaeda as the leader of global jihad, although I'm very suspicious of those claims.

But by targeting ISIS, it creates an incentive for people to go back to al Qaeda. That's because moving forward the U.S. is probably going to pretty narrowly target ISIS. Leaving ISIS puts people on firmer footing, particularly when ISIS' leadership is degraded, which the U.S. strikes will certainly do.

CAMEROTA: OK. Paul, what does that mean? We shouldn't beep hitting ISIS because goodness knows we don't want to strengthen al Qaeda?

PAUL CRUICKSHANK, CNN TERRORISM ANALYST: The United States is hitting both ISIS and al Qaeda, the Khorasan group, Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria, so in a sense it is weakening both.

I think the greater danger is because of these strikes against both groups that the groups could find some sort of common cause, or they could at least stop fighting each other in Syria. That's a very worrying prospect if they could kind of pool resources at some point in the future. We have seen other al Qaeda affiliates in the region, in North Africa and Yemen, call for al Qaeda and ISIS to patch up their differences and to focus on hitting the United States.

LEMON: Paul, we have been discussing exactly how strong is ISIS, is their strength real, has the media been overplaying that? Let's talk -- talk to us about Khorasan. How strong is Khorasan? CRUICKSHANK: This is a pretty small group, Don, maybe a dozen, or more, a few dozen fighters. But this is al Qaeda's A-team. These are veteran operatives who have been in the game for more than a decade, have a lot expertise, experience, all sorts of contacts.

And they're trying to recruit Westerners in Syria, Western militants there for plots back in the West. It doesn't take a very large amount of these militants to put together sophisticated plots in the West. We saw with 9/11 that was just 19 hijackers. We have seen other plots since with fewer amounts of plotters.

And al Qaeda in Yemen had a pretty small external operations division, just a few dozen people at most. And they were able to put together several plots against U.S. aviation -- Don.

CAMEROTA: Daveed, I want to talk about your personal story, because you have a fascinating background. You were born and raised Jewish. And then you converted at some point right after college, I believe, to a radical form of Islam.

Can you help us understand what on earth is attractive about ISIS or al Qaeda or Khorasan to Westerners?

GARTENSTEIN-ROSS: Well, that's not entirely the trajectory.

I actually converted to a more liberal form of Islam and ended up working for a charity that was in the extremist constellation and eventually ended up with a more extreme interpretation. At any rate, this is -- yes, it was about a decade and a half ago. My first book deals with that experience.

I don't think that my own personal experiences answer the question of radicalization. I would say that there are a number of pathways that people take in. Some of them are based more on personal understanding of religion or journey of faith. Some are based more on grievances. And others are based more on other things, like an Australian named David Hicks, for whom sense of adventure seemed to be his primary pathway to radicalism.

And there is no one-size-fits-all model for how people end up getting radicalized or drawn to battlefields like Syria.

LEMON: Quickly, I want to play the president today. He spoke about religion and faith. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: There is nothing new about wars within religions. Christianity endured centuries of vicious sectarian conflict. Today, it is violence within Muslim communities that has become the source of so much human misery. It is time to acknowledge the destruction wrought by proxy wars and terror campaigns between Sunni and Shia across the Middle East.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: I want to get a quick response from both of you, first from Daveed.

Daveed, is he basically telling Muslim nations to get their acts together?

GARTENSTEIN-ROSS: I think that's what he is doing. He's calling for people, especially from Muslim states, to stand up to ISIS. One of the reason he contextualizes this in the context of Christian history I think is to make clear that he is not signaling out one faith, but that right now problems like this, al Qaeda, et cetera, are something that the Muslim world does need to deal with.

LEMON: Paul, you agree?

CRUICKSHANK: I do.

In the political turmoil that followed the Arab spring, we have seen all sorts of extremism flourish throughout the region. And the end of the day, it's that region, the Middle East, that will have to deal with it, Don.

CAMEROTA: Paul, Daveed, thank you so much.

LEMON: Now that airstrikes have been expanded into Syria, do Americans need to do more to stay safe here at home? How serious a threat are possible lone wolf attacks? We're going to got some answers on all of that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAMEROTA: Don, we have been talking about this a lot. It's the most troubling aspect of all this. Defense officials are warning that an attack on the U.S. and Western interests could be imminent, though they know of no credible plot.

So what does that even mean? What do we need to know to stay safe?

LEMON: Why don't we talk about it with CNN's national security analyst, Juliette Kayyem, and Bernard Kerik, former police -- New York City police commissioner and CEO of the Kerik Group.

Bernie, you first. Are we going to see -- are we going -- are we doing enough, I should say, to be safe in this country, considering airstrikes just started in Syria?

BERNARD KERIK, FORMER NEW YORK CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER: Honestly, Don, I think anybody that looks at what is going on today in a post- 9/11 world, you have got to be kind of naive that you are not being as proactive and preemptive as you can in hardening up a lot of the targets around the country, be it schools, malls, tourist sites, synagogues, churches.

CAMEROTA: So, Bernie, Bernie, what does that mean? It means that you want metal detectors at the front door of every elementary school?

KERIK: Well, personally, I'd like metal detectors at every elementary school. Yes, but the bottom line is you've got to secure those locations. You've got to make sure that nobody can get in. You have to have access in egress areas checked. You have to have cameras.

You can't have -- we saw an incident in Connecticut where it was a maniac that walked in and massacred children. We don't want that to happen now, especially when you have a number of these people that are abroad containing U.S. -- holding U.S. passports. They're going to come back here. They're coming back to this country. Where are they going to go, to work in a convenience store? Or you know, what are they going to do when they get back here? They've engaged in the most brutal and savage behavior that we've ever seen on TV or anywhere.

CAMEROTA: So Juliette, do you agree? Is it time to harden up these soft targets like malls and elementary schools?

KAYYEM: Well, I probably come from this with a different approach. I mean, I think the first is, there has never been total peace in the United States. So part of this is that we have always have had a level of risk. It's just that the threat has changed. And it goes up and down depending on where we are in terms of global conflict.

The other is, America was built unsafe. And I think we have to begin to talk about that realistically. We have open borders for a reason. We like commercial activity to be fast. I like going on Amazon and buying my kids' books and them arriving the next day. We are a country about the movement of people and things and ideas.

And so in some ways, the challenge of homeland security is balancing what makes us great as a country and safety and security. I often said after the Boston Marathon when I was on air here, I know how to make a perfectly safe marathon. Don't have it. But we are making choices, all the time.

And so when we have an increased threat level, as we do now. Of course, as Bernie said, increased vigilance by both individuals and, of course, law enforcement to minimize the risk. But also being very clear that we never can get to zero.

LEMON: Let's -- let's talk about some of the things that said that we should do in order to be vigilant, right. Because this was distributed by the FBI, homeland security to law enforcement. This is warning of potential retaliation from lone wolves, if we can put that up. And here's what it says.

"Possible indicators of homegrown violent extremists. Changes in appearance and behavior. Participation in weapons training. Taking down social media profiles prior to travel. Using religious texts to sanction violence." And again, this is FBI/Homeland Security bulletin, September 23.

How -- so is it -- I don't know if it's fear-mongering. Is this fear- mongering or is it very -- is this real? I mean, much of this seems very common sense.

KERIK: Honestly, Don, it's not fear-mongering. These are real things. These are real things. They're common sense.

We have to hope that our intelligence capabilities catch these things in advance. We are in a far better position today than we were on September 11 of 2001. A hundred times better in the intelligence community. The problem is, if you miss one, it's -- it could be...

LEMON: OK.

KERIK: ... a major, major problem for us.

CAMEROTA: Juliette, we say it's not fear-mongering. And yet, these are just hypotheticals. There's no credible evidence that something is about to happen on the homeland. So are we needlessly terrifying people?

KAYYEM: I don't think so. I think part of this is just -- it was sort of, let's be realistic and adults here. Which is we are in a -- we are in a conflict against two organizations in Syria now. And lone wolves may, in their own mind, feel like they're affiliated with some larger meaning. But they're just sociopaths. And so part of this is just getting people to be aware.

And I think what's interesting about the bulletin that went out is a lot of the effort now, both in Britain and the United States, is in engaging the communities of interest in helping law enforcement discover whether there's any one that they should be worried about.

CAMEROTA: Yes, that's a good sign.

LEMON: yes. We'll have to leave it at that. Thank you very much, Bernie Kerik and Juliette Kayyem.

Coming up, the U.S. unleashes another ferocious air attack on targets in Syria. But does the military action justify the cost of this war? We're going to take a look at what this means for your tax dollars.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: The Pentagon says that it appears the air strikes against the 12 oil facilities were successful. Oil is a lucrative business for ISIS.

CAMEROTA: And the Pentagon estimates that all of the refineries that the group controls, not just the ones hit today, generate, Don, up to $2 million a day...

LEMON: Goodness.

CAMEROTA: ... for ISIS to finance its terror operations.

And we're joined now by CNN senior international correspondent Arwa Damon on the Turkey/Syria border for us.

Arwa, great to see you. Tell us what the reaction has been there to the air strikes.

ARWA DAMON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, we were speaking, a short while ago to an activist who was from Raqqah. And he said that they most certainly were welcoming these ongoing strikes against ISIS. Especially, he was saying the types of strikes that we saw taking place a few hours ago, targeting the oil facilities, strikes that were away from populated areas so there wasn't necessarily that risk of any sort of collateral damage.

However, he also said that, within the city of Raqqah itself, the ISIS units that were operating there had moved out of their headquarters into civilian homes, further entrenching themselves amongst the population. So there was something of a concern amongst the population. Very conflicting emotions: on the one hand, happy that these strikes were taking place, that finally the world was paying attention and doing something about the horrific nightmare that they had been living for so long.

And on the other hand, a sense of apprehension and fear that perhaps they could end up killed by some of these air strikes or even by ISIS in some sort of revenge attack. Because the organization has also continuously going around and detaining individuals at random.

That being said, though, there have been a fair amount of concerns being voiced from other opposition activists. The ongoing air strikes by the U.S., especially strikes that were against non-ISIS groups, such as the al-Nusra Front and other Islamic groups, as well, might cause even more civilian casualties. We have been seeing some of that. Some of those that were caused by the initial round of air strikes.

So a lot of fear, a lot of concern. And again, as it has been for so long for the Syrian population, a lot of unknowns at this stage.

CAMEROTA: Very understandable. Arwa, thank you so much for that update.

LEMON: We're going to dig into this a little bit deeper now. Let me bring in Lieutenant Colonel James Reese, CEO of Tiger Swan and a retired Delta Force commander; and Lieutenant Colonel Rick Francona, CNN military analyst and a former U.S. military attache in Syria.

Colonel Francona, new coalition air strikes today in Syria against ISIS oil installations that we've been talking about, about a dozen targets. Tell us about these targets.

LT. COL. RICK FRANCONA (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: These are oil fields and oil refineries located out in the desert. They're halfway between Euphrates River and the Hostica (ph), which is up in the Kurdish area. So as Arwa said, they are out in the middle of a big desert areas. So the limit -- it limits the exposure of the civilian population. And so, there should be very little collateral damage.

But more importantly, what it does is it hits ISIS in the pocketbook. It robs them of some lucrative income. And it prevents them from refining oil that they can use for their own use. So it's -- it's a good target set. We saw this as a continuation. The first night, they hit the finance center in Raqqah, and now they're hitting the oil fields. So it's part of the economic punishment that we're dealing to ISIS.

CAMEROTA: So Colonel Reese, we understand that they hit 12 targets. Does this make a dent into ISIS's funding?

LT. COL. JAMES REESE (RET.), CEO, TIGER SWAN: It absolutely makes a dent in it. Think about it. They're selling oil for about half the price -- I think oil went today about $73 a barrel. So let's say they're telling it at $35. At the 300 to 400 barrels a day that they could be selling on the black market, you're talking $3 million, $4 million. I mean, that's a nice little chunk of change each day to finance their -- their activities back there in their safe haven.

LEMON: Let's talk about the money being spent on all of this. Because - let's talk the cost involved in this campaign.

On the first night, 47 Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched. Each of those costs $500,000. So that's over $23 million. Plus the U.S. is using the new F-22 Raptor, a stealth fighter, which each costs about $412 million. That's a big price tag for the U.S. taxpayer, Colonel Francona.

FRANCONA: Yes, it is. OK. First, let's talk about the Raptor. And OK, it's an expensive piece of equipment. But it's in the inventory. So whether you use an F-15 or an F-22, the cost of the operation isn't that much different. We've already purchased the thing. It's a sunken cost. So we might as well use the best that we have.

The Tomahawks, yes those -- that's an expense; every time you fire one of these, half a million dollars. But -- looking at it from the operators' point of view -- and I'm sure Jim will back me up on this -- you want our troops to have the absolute best equipment they can get. You want them to -- you want this stuff to work. If you're going to put people in harm's way, carrying these weapons to a target or firing a weapon from a ship, you want it to work.

LEMON: Yes, but no doubt. No doubt you want it to work. But still, that is a lot of -- this is being all funded by the American taxpayer. And the people at home are saying, "My goodness. I have to pay for this."

FRANCONA: We do have to pay for this. This is an expensive proposition. The -- but the alternative is to not take any action and let ISIS run amok.

CAMEROTA: But Colonel -- but Colonel, isn't the alternative to get some of the Arab states to help pay for this? Why are we footing the whole bill?

FRANCONA: Well, I don't know that we are. We don't know what the contribution of the entire coalition is. States like -- that aren't providing troops but have volunteered to be part of the coalition.

Let's give -- for example, maybe Kuwait. I've heard that Kuwait is providing funding for some of these operations. And that would be a vital fight. Remember, Desert Storm. Many of these Arab states provided lots of funding that we used to purchase the weapons that we did use.

LEMON: OK, let's move on. I want to talk about John Kerry today. He spoke on CNN. Let's listen and then we'll talk.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: What we've done is we've stopped the onslaught. That was what we were able to achieve with air power. They were moving towards Erbil; they were moving towards Baghdad. Baghdad could well have fallen. Erbil could have fallen. They could have control of all of the oil fields.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So he's trying to justify the conflict here, saying Baghdad could have fallen. Do you buy that, Colonel Reese, that the secretary of state, is he trying to justify the strikes here?

REESE: I mean, anything is possible. But I truly believe right now, especially, we have several people on the ground in Baghdad. And Baghdad is pretty much business as usual right now. There have been some attacks down there. There's been a push out to the west towards BAIP, Baghdad International Airport. But Baghdad, is, I see as a hard target, especially with the Shia militia down there.

CAMEROTA: All right. Colonel Francona, Colonel Reese, thank you so much for being with us.

Up next, it's being dubbed the latte salute. Is it as bad as it looks?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAMEROTA: President Obama's decision to launch air strikes against targets in Syria was criticized by "The New York Times" today in a stinging editorial.

LEMON: Let's talk about it with this guy. Chris Cuomo is the anchor of...

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR, "NEW DAY": He's back.

LEMON: ... CNN's "NEW DAY." So the editorial board was pretty tough on the president. Stirring up a hornet's nest over there. Do you buy that?

CUOMO: Look, who am I to question "The New York Times"? A far better mind, former President Clinton, dismissed it out of hand and said that the trick was to stay off the ground, because ISIS wants you on the ground so that it can turn the tide of who's responsible for the violence onto the U.S. And that's why it's important to stay off the ground.

But the threat is obvious. The instability in the region is obvious. The need is obvious.

CAMEROTA: Yes, but "The New York Times" argument -- sorry to interrupt.

LEMON: ... coming back, right?

CAMEROTA: Well, not only that. It was that he has not laid out a convincing plan for victory in Syria.

LEMON: Right.

CAMEROTA: They also said that he has not explained how this bombing campaign exactly will degrade ISIS or Khorasan. How -- if they're making explosive shirts, that we learned yesterday, have the shirts been blown up? How is this going to degrade the threat?

CUOMO: Well, a little bit of that is convenience on the part of the "Times," right? The head in the sand. You never know what's going to happen in the campaign until you begin it, militarily.

LEMON: There are unknown knowns, and known knowns.

CUOMO: True. Rumsfeld was right. Sometimes things are seen as wrong, because they're confusing, and that's not always the case. What is ignored most in "The New York Times," in my opinion, is I think that it was convenient. I think this was low-hanging fruit for them. They're ignoring the real issue.

Should the president have been able to just go over and declare war because he thinks this is the right thing to do? No, he shouldn't have.

CAMEROTA: He should have gone to Congress.

CUOMO: This is Congress's job, and Congress is giving it to him.

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: They're not around on purpose. I'm so happy they're not here. I'm so happy that they're not playing politics with such important matters right now. But it's their job under the Constitution. And it's been ignored, and it's ignored at all peril.

LEMON: Even the people who are staunchly against, even staunch Republicans are saying this is great. They're now his biggest supporters, President Obama's biggest supporters.

CAMEROTA: Why wouldn't they go on the record?

LEMON: That's politics. They want to get re-elected. They think the public is war weary, and they don't want to be involved.

CUOMO: It is war weary. What is the meaning of leadership?

Look, I'm no warmonger. Right? Why? We have to sacrifice ourselves in these situations. They're very dangerous. CNN is very committed to it. And I applaud that commitment, and I respect it in my own life. But I don't want to run over there any faster than anybody else.

But it's their job under the Constitution. It was very thoughtful. CAMEROTA: But he didn't go to them. Why didn't he take it to

Congress?

CUOMO: Because they are giving him the power.

LEMON: They're happy, though. I think that's.

CAMEROTA: Even if it's pro forma, he should have gone to them. They should have had to stand on their principles way or the other.

CUOMO: I don't blame him. I blame them. Here's why. If you can get the power and you know you have an obstructionist tendency, a culture of obstructionism, then take it. Other presidents have. You have precedent. Is it the right thing to do? I would argue no. But this Congress, I don't think has the right thing in mind.

LEMON: Well, I sort of agree with you. Mark your calendars, because I agree with him. I think it's -- I think in this situation it is the right thing to do. That's where we differ. And I also think you're right. If you have the power to do it, do it, because they'd still be sitting around going, "We should do this. We shouldn't do that." People would be...

CUOMO: David Cameron's doing it the right way. That's the way it should work.

CAMEROTA: Shouldn't the president. And this was also in "The Times." Shouldn't the president have to explain to us exactly what the evidence is that made it an imminent threat? What exactly -- explain what the evidence is.

LEMON: I don't think -- I don't think we -- I don't think we should know every single thing. I don't think we should show our hand to people. Because by telling us information maybe he's giving it away.

CAMEROTA: Wasn't this the problem with George W. Bush, when he wanted to go to Iraq and you all remember...

LEMON: To your point.

CAMEROTA: Even -- even Colin Powell in 2003 had to go in front of the U.N. Security Council with that little vial of anthrax that later was widely criticized that that was the evidence. But at least they were trying to find evidence.

LEMON: I think it was Senator Obama. This was back in 2002. And says "I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require U.S. occupation of undetermined length." And it goes on and on and on. "Build a rationale without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East." That's what it goes on to say.

CAMEROTA: In 2008...

LEMON: Sounds like he's agreeing, though, with "The New York Times."

CUOMO: He was right. He's also become exactly what he didn't want to become, which was a war president. He won the election for two big reasons that we'll remember when we covered it. One, he said, "Iraq stinks. I'm getting us out." And the second one was that John McCain said, "Look, I'm no expert on the economy but I know how to keep us safe" and the economy tanked. So McCain, you know, effectively opted himself out of analysis by the voters. And Obama wound up winning.

LEMON: Are we at war?

CUOMO: We are at war. There's no question about it by any definition.

LEMON: No one wants to say it.

CUOMO: Well, they're saying it now. We had Josh Earnest on this morning. He's saying it. They're changing the dialogue. The question is why they didn't say it. They didn't say it because they know war means Congress. And they don't want to get into that thicket.

CAMEROTA: But isn't it sort of Orwellian that the president who...

LEMON: Let me take a drink (ph).

CAMEROTA: To believe that, the president, who railed against George W. Bush for having a pre-eminent war with scant evidence is now having.

LEMON: Different circumstances.

CAMEROTA: Sorry -- a preemptive -- sorry, a preemptive war with scant evidence. Same thing.

(CROSSTALK)

CAMEROTA: How do you know? Tell me the evidence.

CUOMO: We have evidence of people being beheaded on tape. We've got -- you see that.

CAMEROTA: We go to war now because two Americans were beheaded?

LEMON: no, not because...

CUOMO: You know what? Give me a little of this. And I'll tell you why. You're right. Here is why she's right. Because I'm afraid. Because that's war, the explosion; I'm trying how to avoid it.

It didn't matter enough until the Americans were killed. And now, the British man who showed, trying how to do all the right things, and now the wrong things happening to him.

ISIS has been a threat for years. Syria was a real place that we should have taken more seriously before. But now there's the motivation to act.

So you're right. This would seem small. Right? No human life is meaningless. But it is a smaller precipitating factor than you would have expected. Should he make the case? Absolutely.

LEMON: Can I get this in before you go? What is that?

CUOMO: The salute.

LEMON: The latte salute.

CAMEROTA: The latte salute.

CUOMO: I could not care any less. But now, making it more of a story, Don Lemon.

LEMON: All social media, all conservative media.

CUOMO: Don't give it attention if you think it's not a story.

LEMON: Well, it is. People are talking about it.

CAMEROTA: I think it's multitasking. He's doing too much. Talk about optics. Put the latte down before you salute.

LEMON: He doesn't have to. He doesn't have to salute at all. I mean, it's not required that he salute.

CUOMO: Finally someone...

LEMON: Some presidents don't even do it.

CUOMO: Find me someone -- he looks casual, he's not respecting what it is. Find me someone who's upset about this who didn't already hate the man.

CAMEROTA: And I think we have a picture of a time that George W. Bush had something in his hand.

LEMON: The dog.

CAMEROTA: And he tried to salute. It doesn't work. You've got to put it down, guys.

CUOMO: I think what it really comes done to is what does America value more, coffee or dogs?

CAMEROTA: Thank you. Thanks for joining us. You can watch Chris, of course, every morning, on "NEW DAY," 6 a.m. Eastern through 9. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)