Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

Pentagon Briefing on ISIS Strikes

Aired September 26, 2014 - 13:30   ET

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

GENERAL MARTIN E. DEMPSEY (USA), CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: Thanks, Mr. Secretary.

I'd like to also reiterate that the campaign against ISIL will be a persistent and sustained campaign, and it will take time. As I said last week, this is not an Iraq -- this is an Iraq first strategy. But it's not an Iraq only one.

Our coalition strikes this week demonstrate to ISIL that they have no safe haven in Syria. Our targeted actions are disrupting ISIL's command and control, their logistic capabilities, and their infrastructure in Syria. While in Iraq, we're empowering our Iraqi partners to go back on the offensive.

We'll continue to build, to guide, and to sustain a credible coalition to include, importantly, Arab states to set the stage for a broader international campaign against ISIL. Our military actions are part of a comprehensive strategy that includes disrupting their financing, interdicting recruitment and movement of foreign fighters, and exposing ISIL's false narratives, in particular, stripping away their cloak of religious legitimacy behind which they hide.

While the situation in the Middle East evolves and continues to demand our attention, we're also balancing pressing challenges in other areas. The Ebola outbreak in west Africa is the largest the world has ever seen. This is a complex emergency beyond a public health crisis that has significant humanitarian, economic, political, and security dimensions.

As part of the inter-agency and international response, we're leveraging our military capability's unique capabilities to establish command and control nodes, logistics hubs, training for health care personnel, and engineering support.

And as most of you know, I just returned on Tuesday from a trip to France, Lithuania, and Croatia were I had some candid and very productive discussions with my NATO counterparts. Russia's aggression in eastern Europe and vulnerabilities to NATO's southern flanks (ph) stemming from ISIL and other regional threats, and our enduring commitments in Afghanistan will continue to demand the attention of our European allies.

While I was in Europe, I had the chance to visit the American military cemetery in Normandy with my French colleague. That sacred ground near the sands of Omaha Beach is a testament to the extraordinary men and women in uniform who safeguard our freedoms. Today they're conducting hundreds of exercises, activities, and

engagements across the globe, actions that deter conflict and assure our allies. They're always foremost on -- on my mind, as are their families.

And with that, we'll be happy to take your questions.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, you mentioned President Erdogan of Turkey a few minutes ago. As I'm sure you know, Turkey's again raising the prospect of a buffer zone in Syria and Iraq, with its border -- also today, raised the prospect of a no-fly zone over Syria.

I know Chairman Dempsey has spoken about that to some extent in the past. I'm wondering if the United States would now consider supporting actively to -- to protect a no-fly zone or buffer zone to enforce one.

And also, can you please give me some explicit examples of how the United States is protecting against civilian casualties in Syria?

CHUCK HAGEL, US SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Mm-hmm. Thank you.

On the first question, the buffer zone issue, as I mentioned, and you know, the president and the vice president spoke to Prime Minister Erdogan this week. We continue to talk with the Turkish leadership about their different ways to contribute to the coalition.

The issue of a buffer zone is not a new issue, as you all know. We discuss all these possibilities, and we'll continue to talk about what the Turks believe they require. They know clearly that ISIL and what's happening in Syria and Iraq is a -- a clear and present threat, danger to them. They are now hosting about 1.3 million refugees, plus all of the other dimensions of the ISIL threat to their country and their people.

HAGEL: As to collateral damage, our military, every mission that it plans, always factors in first collateral damage questions and assessments. There is no strike, no military operation ever undertaken in our military without that clear assessment. And then a judgment has to be used as to whether we would go forward with that mission. It is first and foremost the priority of our commanders who have responsibility for strikes to make sure -- do everything they can to make sure there is no collateral damage, specifically civilian casualties.

And I don't know, General, you may happen to have (ph)...

DEMPSEY: Yeah, thanks, Mr. Secretary.

What I'd add is that one of the things you're seeing in this air campaign is the -- the fruition of two decades of inter-operability and -- and procurement activities, training activities, education activities with our allies in the region who are performing just as well as we are on the issue of precision and reducing the possibility of collateral damage. Of course, you know you can't reduce it to zero. And I suspect that

over time ISIL will probably publish a few propaganda videos alleging civilian casualties. But we've got a pretty good suite of ISR there now that should enable us to actually determine not only how to strike, but the results of it after the fact -- what we call patty battle damage assessment. But our -- but our allies are doing very well because of 20 years of effort.

QUESTION: Can I ask you to just clarify on the issue of enforcing a no-fly zone or a buffer zone with Turkey?

DEMPSEY: Yeah, look, a buffer zone might, at some point, become a possibility, but that's not part of our campaign plan presently.

HAGEL: Jim (ph)?

QUESTION: Secretary Hagel, General Dempsey, thank you very much.

I wonder if I could ask you first, Secretary Hagel, you're aware of the threat faced by Syrian Kurds in northwestern Syria along the Turkish border near Korbani (ph). In fact, there was a firefight playing out between ISIS fighters and the Syrian Kurds on CNN just a short time ago.

They appear to be facing the same genocidal threat that we saw with (ph) the Yazidi people and others in Iraq. The U.S. came to their aid. Why hasn't the U.S. come to the aid of the Syrian Kurds from the air? And is that a step that you're considering taking? And I wonder if I could have a quick follow-up with the general?

HAGEL: Mm-hmm. Well, first of all, as General Dempsey said, we have a rather sophisticated and complete ISR picture of all that -- that area, including the area that you talk about. So we are aware of what's going on. We are discussing how and what we can do with our coalition partners to help them deal with it. So it's not a matter of us not being aware of it, nor not actively looking at -- at the options that we have to deal with it.

QUESTION: Does that mean -- does that mean someone like Turkey would be more likely to act than the U.S.?

HAGEL: Well...

(CROSSTALK)

HAGEL: Jim (ph), as I said in my answer to Lara (ph), we're talking to Turkey about this and -- and all of the different aspects of the ISIL threat.

QUESTION: General Dempsey, I wonder if I could ask you, it's been a little more than a week since you testified before Congress and mentioned during that testimony that if you believed it was the right step, you would recommend deploying U.S. ground forces in certain roles if you believe that that was the right thing to recommend to the president.

Since then, we've heard from many administration officials attempting to walk that back. But it...

DEMPSEY: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: ... sounded to me and to others like you were a commander saying honestly and sincerely what -- that you would do what you felt was necessary; you would recommend what you felt was necessary if you thought that was necessary to accomplish the mission.

I wonder if you stand by that, if you believe it's necessary you will go to the president say, `Mr. Obama, I need ground troops in certain roles to succeed here'?

DEMPSEY: If you're asking me would I would provide my -- my best military advice at all times, the answer is absolutely. If you're suggesting that I might, at some point, recommend that we need a large ground force to counter ISIL, the answer to that is also absolutely.

But it doesn't have to be Americans. In fact, ideally, for the kind of issues we're confronting there, the ideal force -- in fact, the only truly effective force that will actually be able to reject ISIL from within its own population, is a force comprised of Iraqis and Kurds and moderate Syrian opposition.

At some point, if we have to advise them more closely than currently we are, of course, I'd recommend it. But we haven't reached that point.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) And I'm not talking about a large presence. I'm talking about, for instance, helping in targeting -- targeting air strikes or forward deployed advisers. Are those specific missions that you might ask the president for U.S. forces?

DEMPSEY: I will -- I -- I just stand by the statement. I will make a recommendation -- the -- I have -- the president gave me a mission, destroy ISIL. And I will recommend to him what it takes to destroy ISIL.

HAGEL: I might just add, Jim, every meeting I have been in with the President of the United States and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff over the last year and a half, the president has made it very clear -- as I have made it clear, as Secretary of Defense -- he expects, the President of the United States, the absolute most direct and honest military advice that General Dempsey and other military uniform leaders can give him.

And he wants it and he must rely on it. And he says he relies on it.

Tony?

QUESTION: A couple of budget question in the -- then a second question for Gen. Dempsey.

What are the resource implications of this long, persistent, sustained campaign?

Can you realistically conduct it within the confines of your current budgeting plans, specifically, you have got a $58 billion request for fiscal year '15 in the so-called OCO budget. You can -- can you accommodate this sustained campaign within those levels of spending?

HAGEL: Well, as you know, we are generally spending roughly, since this effort started, $7 million to $10 million a day. That is being funded out of OCO, overseas contingency operations, and we are going to require additional funding from Congress as we go forward.

As you know, the continuing resolution is due in December 11. We're working now with the appropriate committees on how we go forward with authorizations and funding.

QUESTION: Sir, could I add to this?

(CROSSTALK)

DEMPSEY: Obviously I work very closely with the service chiefs.

When we submitted the budget last year and it went to the White House for approval and it was approved and sent over to Congress, as you know, the joint chiefs all said we could accomplish the nation's security needs with that budget with certain assumptions. One of them was that the number of commitments would either level off or come down. And secondly, that we would get some flexibility in the budget to change paid compensation, health care, retire weapons systems and infrastructure.

Commitments have gone up. The things that we were looking for in terms of flexibility have only very minimally been delivered.

So if you're asking me do I assess right now, as we go into the fall review for '16, that we're going to have budget problems, yes.

QUESTION: Well, let me push back a second here. You're going to be dropping from 26,000 troops in Afghanistan today to 9,800 next year. You're spending $4.6 billion a year on -- a month in Afghanistan now. That's going to come down.

Can't you just move the savings from that into the ISIL campaign?

DEMPSEY: Yes, this would -- this would be a great point for a tutorial on budget. You're talking about OCO. OCO is gas money. The baseline budget is what's -- builds and sustains, trains and equips and organizes a force. We have to separate those when we talk about budget.

HAGEL: And we will be.

Marcus?

QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE) question, has the building gone a long- term analysis on how much they expect both you and Chairman said you expect this to be a long-term operation.

Has it done an analysis on how long --

(CROSSTALK)

HAGEL: We are doing that right now. We have to. We would have to project out, as we are, at -- what the chairman's point was about baseline budgets. That's the critical part of this. And so, yes, we're -- we are doing that now.

DEMPSEY: Yes, if I could add to that, because I just got asked minutes ago, how long is it going to take to recapture Mosul? And I said, hmm, great question. If you don't mind, I will answer it with a question.

How long is it going to take the government -- the new government of Iraq to convince the Sunni, Shia and Kurds that their future should res with them, not with separations along sectarian lines?

This is a campaign that strings activities together and one of the activities that has to come together is a government of Iraq that separates because of its policies, that can draw the people back to them so that ISIL can no longer swim freely within their ranks.

HAGEL: Yes, Jim? Jim?

QUESTION: Chairman Dempsey, do you believe that it will take -- in fact take some ground troops inside Syria to destroy ISIS?

And if they are not Americans, do you have enough faith in training 5,000 Free Syrian Army troops, the nonaggressive militants, to achieve that goal, to destroy ISIS?

DEMPSEY: Actually, first I never -- I never heard the phrase "nonaggressive militants," but I mean, I suppose --

(LAUGHTER)

DEMPSEY: -- it sounds to me like an oxymoron, Jim.

But let me see if I can answer the question.

Air power alone -- first of all, there is no military solution to ISIL. I have said military only solution, OK? Secondly there is no air power alone solution to ISIL, either in Iraq or in Syria.

And so the answer is, yes, there has to be a ground component to the campaign against ISIL in Syria, and we believe that the path to develop that is the Syrian moderate opposition.

Five thousand's never been the end state. It's -- there's -- there's -- we've had estimates anywhere from 12,000 to 15,000 is what we believe they would need to recapture lost territory in eastern Syria.

And I am confident that we can establish their training if we do it right. We -- we have to do it right, not fast. They have to have military leaders that bind them together. They have to be -- have a political structure into which they can hook, and therefore be responsive to. And that's gonna take some time. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, you said earlier this week that the U.S.

would defend militarily the Free Syrian Army. What does that mean? I mean, are talking about possibly engaging Syrian forces military?

HAGEL: I think the question was asked those that we -- we begin training...

QUESTION: Right.

HAGEL: ... if they were attacked would we help them, and I said yes.

QUESTION: If I could...

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, could I follow up...

HAGEL: Christine (ph). QUESTION: Thank you. Mr. Secretary, why was the decision made to send the headquarters element of the first infantry division to Iraq? What will they be doing there? Will they be leave the joint operation centers?

And General, I want to follow up with a question for you.

HAGEL: Well, first of all, I can help you with that one, too. The -- in fact, the general's son is...

DEMPSEY: Yeah.

HAGEL: ... with the First Division. But you recall the president, when he announced to the nation what his strategy was and what he was instructing the Defense Department to do, he mentioned that there'd be an increase of 475 personnel. And so the command and control function of that will come out of the First Division as other personnel will be assigned as well from other components. But that's -- that's why they are going.

General?

DEMPSEY: Yeah, they're -- and they're a coherent standing war fighting organization that understands how to integrate these multiple activities and to manage the activities of the coalition.

The group that went in there initially was really focused on just beginning to make the initial contacts that the Iraqi security forces and monitoring the activities of the assessment team. This is an organization that actually has the band width and the skill sets to manage a campaign.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

HAGEL: Dave, did you (ph)...

QUESTION: Oh, I'm sorry. I just wanted to ask -- follow up with a question. Can you give us an update about the training of Iraqi forces? And what are the risks to U.S. troops that will be doing the training and advising there? DEMPSEY: Well, the update is that the -- as I mentioned I think in a

previous engagement, of the 26 or so brigades that we assessed to be prepared to -- to accept training and advice and reequipping we're beginning to do two things.

One is, we're working with -- CENTCOM is working with the Iraqi military leaders to ensure that what occurs on the ground is their campaign, not our campaign. We want it to be their campaign, enabled by us, not our campaign where we drag them along for legitimacy.

And I can assure you that some of the activities -- all of the activities you've seen in and around Baghdad up until now have been Iraq military leaders establishing priorities and objectives enabled by us. So we're making progress. We've got to have a longer, larger campaign that actually recaptures lost territory. What risks? By the way, the, you know, men and women in uniform understand risk. They understand how to manage it. We've been -- we've been doing train-and-equip for the last 12 years nonstop. We can't ever drive risk to zero, but I've -- I assured the moms and dads out there of these young men and women that we mitigate it and reduce it to the -- to the greatest extent possible.

HAGEL: Mm-hmm?

QUESTION: Do you believe that so far you have avoided any civilian casualties in your air campaign? And do you have any reason to believe that the reports that senior leaders of ISIS and Khorasan have been (inaudible) some of these air strikes?

DEMPSEY: We have received no reports of civ cavs (ph), or collateral damage, up to this point in the campaign. But there's always some latency in reporting on the ground in an air campaign. So we're alert for it and also have flown ISR to try to confirm or deny battle damage assessments.

As for some of the -- the -- whether some of the key leaders of either Khorasan or ISIL have been killed, too soon to tell. We -- you know, what we do is, we monitor various kinds of intelligence. We scan social media, which is normally the first place you find out, frankly. But it's too soon to tell.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Who is the head of the free Syrian opposition, the moderate rebels that you are planning to train?

And, Chairman Dempsey, do you need spotters on the ground to be more precise in your airstrikes in Syria and is that what's stopping you from helping the Kurds along the Turkish border right now?

HAGEL: Well, first of all, we're in the process of setting up the vetting system for those that we will begin training, moderate opposition Syrian fighters.

QUESTION: But who is the head of that opposition? HAGEL: Well, we don't have a head of it, in that we are vetting and

will continue to vet through our regional partners, State Department, intelligence departments, as they will build their coalitions with our help, We're not gonna instruct them as to who their leaders are. They'll make their own decision on who their -- who their leaders are.

DEMPSEY: And, Jennifer, the question about whether we need spotters, as you say, forward air controllers on the ground to help in Syria and whether that's a limiting factor in what's going on the -- on the -- with the Syrian Kurds, the answer is no.

As I've mentioned in testimony, the issue of the requirement for forward air controllers on the ground really manifests itself when the forces join and become intermingled. That's when it becomes very complicated and difficult to manage from a -- from a full-motion-video feed from a Predator. These forces happen to be separated, so that's not a limiting factor.

But I -- but I would also remind us, actually, that you can't be everyplace and see everything. I know that somebody's got an iPhone out there taking a picture of it, but that does not mean that we're anywhere nearby, because the CENTCOM commander, given the tasks he's been given, prioritizes his resources and he may not happen to be looking right now at the -- at the Syrian border.

STAFF: Thanks, everybody. Appreciate it.

HAGEL: Thank you.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: All right. That is a key briefing there we just got from Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Democracy.

And to discuss it I want to bring in CNN military analyst, Lieutenant Colonel Rick Francona as well as CNN law enforcement analyst Tom Fuentes who's here with me in Washington.

First to you, Lieutenant Colonel, there were a few, I think, key moments in this briefing. One of which was when our Jim Sciutto, CNN's Jim Sciutto, asked Martin Dempsey if he stands by recent suggestion that U.S. troops, ground forces may need to become involved in the fight against ISIS?

This was a pretty interesting answer. He said that he will provide his best military advice. He said there needs to be a large ground force but he said it doesn't need to be American. So obviously looking elsewhere towards allies. But at this point rather than allies.

LT. COL. RICK FRANCONA, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: I'm sorry? What it --

KEILAR: At this point, yes, it appears that he's looking -- he appears to be sort of walking back what he said, saying there needs to be a large ground force, but instead of it being American, it will need to be allies, but at this point they're reticent, aren't they? FRANCONA: Yes. It's a problem. And, you know, this is being hit

home more and more every day as we see just how bad the Iraqi army is. So if he's relying on the Iraqi army to stand up, that's going to take a lot more time than we originally thought.

The Peshmerga are going to require more weapons and some additional training. So I think we're looking at a much longer time horizon than they originally thought. So at some point he may be looking for other people to come in there, maybe Jordanians, maybe Saudis, somebody else. But I think our assessment of the Iraqi army, and I hate to say this, was even optimistic as bad as it was.

KEILAR: And what about moderate Syrian rebels? It sounds -- it sounds listening to this briefing that the idea of even identifying, Lieutenant Colonel, identifying who may be able to take on ISIS in Syria, that it's a very nascent process. We heard Dempsey saying we need do it right, not do it fast. And obviously you need to figure out how to put in place a military leadership for some of these fighters to attach to. I mean, this sounds like a very drawn out situation.

FRANCONA: Yes. That was a very interesting answer to Jim's question. And it sounds like they really are looking at a long, long-term solution here. The training is going to take a long time. It hasn't started yet. And in the meantime, ISIS is on the move. I mean, we saw today they're moving up to the Turkish border, they're still taking territory from the Kurds, and they're moving to the west towards Aleppo.

So ISIS is not slowing down. And the air power so far has not blunted that advance as it has in Iraq. So are we going to put more air power into Syria? Are we willing to continue this campaign for months and months while we get some ground troops in there or train up some of the Syrian moderates?

I think the Syria piece is going to be the real problem. I think the Iraqi piece can be solved, it's going to take time, but the Syria piece, I think, really is -- they haven't thought this out yet.

KEILAR: Yes. It seems very much in the beginning of things right now. And certainly to that point, I think we heard Chuck Hagel say as much.

Let's bring in chief national security correspondent Jim Sciutto. He was in this briefing at the Pentagon. He asked really the key question of this briefing.

Sort of break that down for us, Jim. What the response you got from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, Brianna, I'll tell you. I did not hear a walk-back, frankly, from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dempsey when I asked him that question.

He did say that the preference is for a local large ground force, but when I pressed him on whether he stands by his comments that if he determines, as a commander, that he needs to recommend a small contingent of U.S. troops whether to be forward ground controllers following airstrikes or possibly to be forward deployed with units, more deployed than they are right now, because right those advisers are back in joint operations center in Irbil and Baghdad. But he said that if he determined that was necessary, he would go to the president.

It was interesting, Secretary of Defense Hagel followed up that point by saying as he said last week during testimony, that the president has said to them repeatedly, listen, come to me when you have those recommendations, and I'll listen to them. So I didn't hear them walking that back or closing that door. I heard them holding to a line that they held last week during Senate testimony, which was -- which was to say that if we determine we need that step, we will recommend that step.

It doesn't mean the president will approve it, but they did say that the president told them, you know, as commanders, if you believe that's the right step, come to me, and I will listen.

It's interesting. I saw a commander there standing by his sincere commitment to ask for what he believes is necessary to complete the mission, including a small contingent of U.S. ground troops.

KEILAR: Yes. He said if necessary, Tom, he will advise. But before saying that, he highlighted the Iraqis, the Kurds, moderate Syrian opposition.

TOM FUENTES, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Right. And the other question I have is the administration keeps saying and the secretary said again today that the government of Iraq is making great progress. Their new government.

What new government? They've only been in office about two hours. They do not have a -- minister of Defense, they do not have a minister of the Interior. So that means nobody running their military, their law enforcement, their border control. Without that, we don't even know who's going to be in charge of that.

Until they get in there and actually appoint some of the Sunnis back to key positions that we trained, because after all, for the last 12 years, we've trained more military officials in Iraq probably than we have at West Point. So that's what has to happen. And that's not even on the road to happening yet. I don't think.

KEILAR: Yes. And that is a very key point that you bring up, Tom. I wonder what you think about this, Jim. We did hear during this briefing that, you know, obviously highlighting that the U.S. is trying to help Iraq and certainly support Iraq in its reconciliation process, bringing in Sunnis to feel that they are not disenfranchised by the Iraqi government, because that helped create a void that allowed ISIS to find a toehold in Iraq. But really where is this process? This is a very, very start.

SCIUTTO: It is at the very step. These are all steps that the administration wants but that we haven't seen yet. Yes, you have a new Iraqi president but you don't -- and prime minister, but you don't, as Tom notes, have those key positions filled, the Interior Ministry, Defense Ministry, which are the ones that have always been the real deal breakers when trying to find a solution that all sides can be happy with.

KEILAR: Yes.

SCIUTTO: In addition to the fact that those are the two key positions you need to wage a war against ISIS in the country. So that political process is coming slowly. But again you heard from both Secretary Hagel and General Dempsey here that continuing expectations management saying that we know -- in fact, he said it in explicit terms, Secretary Hagel very early in his comments. It was, we are under no illusions that airstrikes alone will destroy ISIS. And then he went to list those other steps, including political agreement.

KEILAR: Yes. Jim Sciutto, thank you so much. Tom Fuentes, thank you to you. Lieutenant Colonel Rick Francona, thank you as well.

And those were the words from Chuck Hagel. We are at the beginning, not the end of our efforts to degrade ISIL.

That is it for me. I'll be back at 5:00 Eastern on the "SITUATION ROOM." "NEWSROOM" with Don Lemon starts right now.