Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Kerry Testifies On Strategy Against ISIS

Aired September 17, 2014 - 16:30   ET

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

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: We've been listening to Secretary of State John Kerry testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the Obama administration's strategy to fight the terrorists of ISIS.

Let's bring in our chief national security correspondent, Jim Sciutto, as well as Retired Admiral James Stavridis. He is the former NATO Supreme Allied commander and is now dean of the Fletcher School at Tufts University.

Jim, I just want to start with you quickly. A lot of this debate has been about really how large the role of the United States should be in the world. Should there be ground troops there? Just air strikes? What kind of alliances can we build? Who else should be doing the work?

So really, even though there is a lot of back and forth about different issues, those are the largest context and themes.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: No question. I would just make two points. On the issue of who is leading this, clearly, the U.S. is leading. It's leading the military operation.

The secretary there even in a couple of points playing down the importance of other nations' role for instance in military air strikes, saying, there will be a couple, but that's not what we're looking for here.

They want a coalition, but the U.S. is going to be leading the military operation despite the president's comments in recent months about how the U.S. role would be different going forward. That's one point I would make.

The second point I would make is it seems that the administration has settled on a final answer on this question of a combat role of some sort of involvement in combat of U.S. troops and you heard that from Secretary Kerry there. No combat mission, but in fact, U.S. troops may find themselves in combat.

Even White House spokesman, Josh Earnest said today that they may be on the front lines. Now you and I have both been embedded with troops and when you see combat you know regardless of what your role is even if you're not setting up a firing position, you're in combat.

TAPPER: Right. SCIUTTO: You're in combat and shots are getting fired and you're facing risk. Now whether or not that's the president's promise over these last few weeks, not to have ground forces that's for other people to decide, you know, whether that violates the spirit, but that's going to be the administration's explanation.

TAPPER: Admiral Stavridis, let me ask you, a point that was made by the Arizona Senator Jeff Flake is that the United States backing down from its pledge. Last year, the red line to go after Assad if he used chemical weapons against his own people that that has affected, hurt the United States government's ability to form alliances for this mission. You're somebody who used to depend for your job on such alliances as NATO supreme allied commander. Do you think that is accurate?

ADMIRAL JAMES STAVRIDIS, FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER: No, I don't. My view would be that the vast majority of nations that would be willing to be in a coalition with us applauded when we did not have to launch the strikes because Assad agreed to give up those weapons voluntarily.

So I don't think that that was a backdown. I think that was the opportunity to remove the chemical weapons at a relatively low cost. I think the nations willing to be in the coalition regarded that as relatively sensible at the time and would continue to be willing to be in a coalition with us.

TAPPER: Admiral, there is obviously a lot of debate about no boots on the ground, no combat troops. Do you believe that the administration's use of terms like no boots on the ground is an expression of the ambivalence to get involved and the desire to not get involved in another ground war?

Do you think it's also being used as a public relations tool to try to assure the American people that they won't see the same kind of American death that was seen in Afghanistan, in Iraq. What do you think is behind this phraseology as Jim pointed out?

Obviously, there are going to be Americans, there are already Americans wearing boots on the ground in Iraq and they will be involved in combat one way or another.

STAVRIDIS: I think, without question, we are going to see our young men and women engaged in combat. I don't think they'll be given a primary, direct, combat assignment initially, but I think it's entirely possible that as events change and morph the situation may ultimately require that.

So I think if we're going to be honest, we ought to start by saying we're going to send in troops. They're going to advice, train, mentor. They're going to stiffen the Iraqi security forces and they'll stiffen the Peshmerga in the north.

We'll do the bombing in the west and initially no ground combat mission, but I don't think we should foreclose that option going forward as to why I think it's a result of an enormous and understandable war fatigue here in the United States particularly in this region of the world.

But the military has to provide options to the commander in chief, and I think the military will continue to give options across the entire spectrum to the president.

TAPPER: John McCain read something from the defense secretary, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, that he said on CBS in which he said there will be boots on the ground if there's going to be any hope of success in this strategy. I think by continuing to repeat no boots on the ground the president in fact, traps himself. Do you agree?

STAVRIDIS: I think any time you engage in combat, any time you release ordinance, it's like walking into a very darkroom. You don't know what's going to happen. You have to have options and you have to be prepared for different eventualities.

And I think a good strategy is one that understands that things can change, the mission can change and you need to be prepared. I think that's what Secretary Gates is getting at.

TAPPER: Admiral James Stavridis, thank you so much. We really appreciate it, formerly NATO Supreme Allied commander, now with the Fletcher School at Tufts University.

Let's bring in Bill Kristol, founder and editor of the "Weekly Standard" and Jay Carney, a CNN political commentator and of course, the former White House press secretary. Good to see you both, Gentlemen.

Jay, let me start with you. It must be interesting watching this from the outside looking in for the first time in your career working for the Obama administration, but obviously, there are some mixed signals here and there between the Pentagon, between secretary of state and between the White House.

Is it a reflection of how quickly the mission is coming together? Is it a reflection of the president's obvious, and I don't fault him for it, but obvious ambivalence about using U.S. force? What do you see is the reason behind it?

JAY CARNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think you're right that the quickness of the policy development and the coalition building contributes to that. I think you have, on the one hand, a president as commander in chief trying to explain to the American people what this fight is about, why we're using military force and put parameters around it.

And distinguish it from the very long occupation of Iraq with substantial U.S. ground forces that America has already lived through, and I think you also have on the other hand professional military, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who fulfilling their responsibilities are explaining what hypotheticals might look like.

And among those hypotheticals is a situation where the current strategy which the chairman said he believes will work and believes in. If it doesn't you could see a different scenario. As a communicator in the White House that's always a hard piece of business, right? Because now we're talking about mixed messages instead of about substantive policy issues and that always puts the White House a little on the defensive.

TAPPER: We should note that the House of Representatives right now is voting on this package, $500 million to arm and train the Syrian rebels as well as allow the Defense Department to do so. It looks as though that is going to pass the House of Representatives.

Bill, I'm sure you disagree with Jay's more charitable assessment of the administration's messaging and mission.

BILL KRISTOL, FOUNDER, "THE WEEKLY STANDARD": I don't think it's a messaging question, Bob Gates, former secretary of defense are serious people and they know if you commit to a military mission, you do not rule out one of the key components of military power.

The president is capable of saying and if Jay were there, maybe he would tell the president, suggest to the president, can you say that? We're not going to have 150,000 troops in Iraq.

We are not going to be there for ten years. That's a long way from saying no ground troops. Why does he say that? It is stupid. It is ridiculous. It is offensive.

Really? You can't imagine the fight against ISIS going in such a way, that we would say, you know what? This thing is on the cusp. We need to send in 5,000 U.S. combat ground troops to win this thing.

CARNEY: Again, that would be saying specifically only 5,000 --

KRISTOL: No, you would be leaving the option open, which is what a serious commander in chief does.

CARNEY: I think the short hand that a lot of people use about, you know, no boots on the ground is semantically problematic because obviously there will be American military personnel with their boots on the ground.

TAPPER: There are already.

CARNEY: There is the distinction that is being drawn and I think it is one worth drawing is between what we did in Iraq, a war that lasted for a very long time, cost us an enormous amount of money and cost a lot of people their lives and resulted in sustained, terrible injuries for many, many more and what we are doing now.

And one of the reasons to make that decision is because that policy didn't work. It did not work and it is one of the reasons why where we are where we are it today.

KRISTOL: It's no reason for a president irresponsibly saying we're not going to use troops in combat in Iraq when it's crucial to the security of the United States. CARNEY: I think the American people need to know what the president's purposes are and why he believes it's important to engage U.S. military power, but why ultimately this is a fight that has to be on the ground utilizing local --

KRISTOL: What Martin Dempsey was saying, in fact, is that if the Iraqis go in and need our help with advisers and special operators, they may need U.S. troops in combat with them. The president has ruled out. That is what he's saying. No U.S. troops in combat and that is really -- I can't remember an American president doing something so irresponsible.

CARNEY: You can't?

KRISTOL: I cannot. What he's asking for support from Congress and from the American public. I support his request. I would vote yes and the House of Representatives today as most Republicans are to support the president on this effort --

CARNEY: Described his mission, the mission that he was asking American military personnel to pursue. That mission the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said in testimony that he supported and believes will work.

He also said if it doesn't, he might recommend a different scenario. The mission the president described does not include a U.S. combat mission with ground forces fighting it.

TAPPER: We only have a minute left. I just want to get to one question, which is, what is the difficulty in getting Arab allies to kick in with military assistance?

Jay, you don't work for the White House anymore, you can be frank. What is the problem?

CARNEY: The Middle East knows this as well, it's an enormously complicated place with -- you have Saudi Arabia, you know, mindful of and worried about Iran. You have the Shia-Sunni conflict affecting everything, every decision.

TAPPER: This is for all of them.

CARNEY: Well, I understand that and that's why it is so important that they step up. And I think if we do it all, they're less likely to step up.

KRISTOL: They have no confidence that this president will follow through and therefore they are not going commit.

CARNEY: That's ridiculous. So for their own self-interest, they're not going to pursue --

TAPPER: I have to throw it to Wolf, guys. I'll turn it over to Wolf Blitzer in "THE SITUATION ROOM." Thank you so much. Thanks for watching.