Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

White House Press Briefing; Russian Strikes Not Targeting ISIS; Russia Launches First Airstrikes in Syria; Afghan Forces Struggle to Take Back Key City; Airstrikes in Kunduz to Bolster Afghan Forces. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired September 30, 2015 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:25] JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: At the same time, we have always warned against the inclination to, essentially, make snap decisions on policy almost literally overnight. And so, that's why we're going to continue to monitor the efforts by the Afghan government and Afghan security forces to retake Kunduz. And that will factor into a longer-term assessment of the conditions on the ground which will influence longer-term policy decisions that the president will have to make.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Has the president received those recommendations from the commanders in any kind of a formal way at this time?

Well, I don't have any update for you, in terms of the kind of communication between the commander in chief and the commanders on the ground. But as you know, Josh (ph), the president does receive regular briefings, regular updates from his military commanders through the chain of command and that certainly will continue.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And at the United Nations to today, Palestinian president, Abbas, said he's no longer bound by agreements with Israel. They are going to start pursuing legal means to pursue the Palestinian statehood and are basically abandoning the direct negotiations approach that has been your approach for a very long time now. So, what is the U.S. response to the Palestinians dismissing that approach?

EARNEST: Well, I believe that prime minister Abbas was speaking -- or President Abbas was speaking right as I walked out here. So, I don't have any direct response to what he has said. I will just say, as a general matter, that the United States has long been, and continues today, to be committed to achieving peace that the Palestinians and Israelis deserve.

And we've described the resolution of this conflict as a two-state solution that results in two states for two peoples with a sovereign, viable and independent Palestinian state living side by side in peaceful and security with a Jewish and Democratic Israel. That's been our position for quite some time and that continues to be the position today -- Julia (ph).

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thanks, Josh. Going back to Russia's involvement in Syria, and you just told Josh that the Defense Department is reviewing the actions. EARNEST: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The deputy defense secretary told lawmakers on the Hill today that Russia's move was alarming and aggressive and had come before discussions that they were promised to have on deconflicting. Is that same level of surprise being shared by the White House?

EARNEST: I didn't see those particular comments. I think what is clear is that we have known for quite some time, and when I say we, I'm including all of you, because we've had active public discussions in here about the significant deployment of military assets and personnel by the Russians into Syria.

And so, I don't think it's particularly surprising that Russia is using those new military capabilities, particularly in light of their longstanding efforts to prop up the Assad regime.

And in light of the continuing weakness of the Assad regime, in terms of their ability to control territory inside that country, the Russians felt that they needed to ramp up their efforts. And the reason that I think the second data point that I would remind you of is that there is also a reason that both President Putin and President Obama have prioritized and greed on the need for operational tactical level conversations to deconflict military operations inside of Syria. You would need to have conversations to deconflict military activities inside of Syria if you didn't have plans for military operations inside of Syria.

So, the point is that U.S. military officials have been in touch with their Russian counterparts to set up those conversations. And I would expect that those conversations would take place in short order.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So, yes, President Obama and President Putin discussed the need for conversations to deconflict. But during that hour and a half conversation they had at the United Nations, did anything -- did President Obama get any kind of indication from President Putin about the timing of these strikes or the targets or is this something left completely off of the table?

[13:05:09] EARNEST: Well, I think what I would say is that this -- that there was not a - there's not an operational level conversation in the meeting between the two presidents. Those operational conversations were the kinds of conversations that both presidents expect the -- their military officials to engage in.

And, like I said, the United States has been in touch with Russian military officials to begin those tactical, practical level conversations to ensure that our military activities and Russian military activities are properly deconflicted.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Another question. On the Hill today -- or Hill yesterday, lawmakers reached a compromise on the annual defense authorization bill, and they have it so that it would use $90 billion from special war funds to avoid sequestration.

EARNEST: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Would the White House oppose this bill on the grounds that it would end sequestration for defense but not other programs?

EARNEST: Well, I think that we would oppose the bill for the reasons that you have described because that's an irresponsible way to fund our national defense priorities. Even Republicans in Congress have referred to this as a slush fund. This is not a partisan response. In fact, we know that this is actually a view that is shared by the -- by some Republicans on Capitol Hill.

I'd also point you to -- direct you to the statement that was released by the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Jack Reed, a West Point graduate from Rhode Island. And according to his news release, he said, quote, "There are many needed reforms in the committee conference report, but the use of emergency war funds does not realistically provide for the long-term support of our forces." Senator Reed continued, saying, "I cannot sign this conference report, because it fails to responsibly fix the sequester and provide our troops with the support that they deserve."

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: All right. We're going to continue to monitor this White House briefing. The White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, making some important statements on the new developments unfolding, the breaking news unfolding in Syria and in the war against ISIS.

We want to welcome our viewers in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer reporting from Washington.

The breaking news, Russia has launched its first air strikes inside Syria. But was it actually targeting ISIS or was it targeting something else? Russian warplanes carried out an attack near the Syrian city of Homs, but a senior administration official tells CNN the strike, quote, "has no strategic purpose in term of combatting ISIS." Russian officials say the Syrian president, Bashar Al Assad, asked for Russian military help in the fight against ISIS. Russia is a close Assad ally and defender of his regime in Damascus.

President Obama is calling for an end to Assad's presidency but the U.S. secretary of state, John Kerry, says the administration is now calling for what he describes as an orderly managed transition. Just a little while ago, Kerry responded to Russia's growing military involvement in Syria and whether it is committed to stamping out ISIS.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KERRY (D), U.S. SECRETARY OF STATES: If Russia's recent actions and those now ongoing reflect a genuine commitment to defeat that organization, then we are prepared to welcome those efforts and to find a way to deconflict our operations and thereby multiply the military pressure on ISIL and affiliated groups. But we must not and will not be confused in our fight against ISIL with support of Assad.

Moreover, we have also made clear that we would have grave concerns should Russia strike areas where ISIL and Al Qaeda affiliated targets are now operating -- are not operating. Strikes of that kind would question Russia's real intentions fighting ISIL or protecting the Assad regime.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: So, what were the targets of Russia's air strikes that began today in Syria? What are the implications? Let's bring in our Global Affairs Correspondent Elise Labott, our CNN Counterterrorism Analyst Phil Mudd. He's a former CIA counterterrorism official. And retired U.S. Lieutenant General Mark Hertling. He's a CNN Military Analyst, former commanding general for Europe and the Seventh Army.

Elise, what are you -- have you learned about these Russian airstrikes that targets? What about the administration official who says that these strikes had absolutely no strategic purpose in the fight against ISIS?

ELISE LABOTT, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's right, Wolf. I mean, this morning the first Russian airstrikes were targeting the area of Homs. And from what U.S. officials are telling us, and also some of our people who follow the region very closely, Homs is not an area where ISIS is concentrated. You're talking more about the free Syrian army, the opposition groups on the ground. And also Al Nusra which, to be fair, is considered a terrorist group by the United States, but it is against the Assad regime.

[13:10:10] So, this bolsters the U.S. concerns that the Russians are not targeting ISIL -- ISIS, as they say, but they're really going after targets to secure the Syrian military and strengthen Bashar Al Assad. And that's the real concern here, Wolf, that the Russians are going to use their pretext of being on the ground to go after the legitimate opposition.

BLITZER: Well, that is the concern, General Hertling, you hear from officials here in Washington, that Russia's using this right against ISIS simply as a prop to bolster the regime of Bashar Al Assad, a close ally of Moscow. But also to strengthen and improve Russia's position in that part of the world.

LT. GEN. MARK HERTLING, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Of course it is, Wolf. And anyone that believed that Russia was going in to support Assad in a fight against ISIL doesn't understand the situation there. Assad has never fought ISIL in his own country. Russia has two military basis which gives him access to the Mediterranean right around Damascus in the military base of Tartus (ph) and Latakia (ph).

So, he is not there. Mr. Putin is not there to fight ISIS. No matter what he and his defense ministry and his ministry of the interior are saying. They are there to support their ally, Mr. Assad, to give him power against the moderate Syrians who are trying to overthrow the government. And there really very little interest in overcoming ISIS which has been something that Mr. Assad hasn't paid a whole lot of attention to recently.

BLITZER: having said that, though, Phil, there are Russian security officials who say that, what, about 2,400 Russian citizens have actually gone over to start fighting for ISIS. How worried would the government in Moscow be to their return potentially carrying out attacks in Russia?

PHILIP MUDD, CNN COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST: I think they've got multiple reasons to do that. The first is, as you suggest, is they've got foreign fighters there that dwarf what we've seen travel from America. They've had a longstanding problem with Islamic extremism. They've had a lot of violence, including in Moscow. So, there is a secondary reason for Putin to be there, and that is to take out the ISIS people who are training Russians coming in.

But I've got to agree with General Hertling, this is pretty straight forward. This is not about ISIS. This is about the reinstitution of the Russian state. During the Soviet empire, you had allies that ranged from India to Iraq to Syria, down occasionally to Egypt. This is Putin looking at the Americans and saying, I'm back to play. You guys can't do anything about it. And if you try to get in the way, I'm showing up anyway. This is pretty clear what Putin's up to.

BLITZER: We're going to have a lot more on this part of the story. The breaking news, Russia launching airstrikes inside of Syria. That's coming up. Guys, don't go too far away.

But there's other breaking news we're following, very worrisome developments both for the United States and NATO.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE.)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Now, for a third straight day, Afghan forces, they're struggling to try to re-take the city of Kunduz from Taliban insurgents following a surprise attack on Monday. The city is located in the north as part of the key agricultural town, has a highway connecting Afghanistan to Tajikistan. While the fighting rages on, many families are fleeing right now. They're packing up. They're getting out by truck, rickshaw, horse and some on foot. Afghan officials say they're suffering from a shortage of ground troops. Hundreds of reinforcements are stuck in neighboring Baghlan Province where insurgents have blocks the highway.

And while a small number of coalition Special Forces are in Kunduz, U.S. officials say Afghans have to leave the effort to reclaim this city.

Let's get a closer look on this developing story. Joining us now, the former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, also happens to be a former ambassador to Syria, Ryan Crocker. Ryan, thanks very much for joining us. It seems that Afghan forces who have been trained by the U.S., armed by the U.S., costing U.S. taxpayers literally 10s of billions of dollars in recent years, they're running away from a large city like Kunduz. A city of about 300,000. It reminds me of the Iraqi troops who ran away from Mosul when a few ISIS forces came in. RYAN CROCKER, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO AFGHANISTAN: Yes, Wolf. It

does, all too clearly, remind us of what happened in Mosul in 2014. I don't know the dynamics of Kunduz. That has long been a Pashtun (ph) area. Clearly, we're going to have to figure it out. And we're going to have to sit down with the Afghans and see what can be done to retake the city. But then, look more broadly at capabilities, morale and motivations of Afghan security forces and what we can help them to do to see that this is not the beginning of a long spiral down.

[13:15:00] The U.S. airstrikes, apparently at least some limited air strikes, have been involved now. They're trying to bolster what remains of the Afghan forces in Kunduz. Is that going to make much of a difference?

CROCKER: I have heard about the air strike. I'm also aware that we've got special forces now moving into the Kunduz airport area. This can make a difference. Whether it's Iraqi troops or Afghanistan troops, if American advisors are embedded with them, and there is American air support over them, they're probably going to fight a lot better.

I would say that unlike Iraq, at least we're still in Afghanistan in a substantial way with 9,800 troops, as well as our coalition allies. I'd hate to think what this would look like if we were already down to the stated goal of an embassy presence of about 1,000.

BLITZER: Well, what would happen, do you think?

CROCKER: I fear that you would see something very similar to what we've seen in Iraq, just a complete unraveling. Kunduz is not that unraveling, at least not yet. It's one city. It's a major setback. But we're not seeing a Taliban sweep all through Afghanistan as we did with the Islamic State in Iraq. So I think we're positioned with our forces there, with our commanders there to help the Afghans steady out, and then one hopes retake the city. Without us there, what is bad news today would be far worse tomorrow.

BLITZER: Because, as I pointed out, tens of billions of dollars were spent training these Afghan troops, training the Iraqi troops for that matter as well, and a lot of people are wondering why continue to send that kind of money over there if after the U.S. leaves, and at some point the U.S. will leave, it's simply going to go back to either the Taliban in Afghanistan or these militias taking over, pro-Iranian militias or whatever, in Iraq?

CROCKER: The argument I would make, Wolf, is precisely that. It's about the U.S. leaving. It simply doesn't work to pushing a whole bunch of money into standing up a major military and then to say, you're on your own. This can be a multi-year, even a generational process. And its chances of success are tied directly to how much of a commitment we're going to make to make it work. And I'm not talking about sending back in the 101st Airborne to Afghanistan or to Iraq. I am simply saying that we need to make the commitment to a sustained presence, a sustained commitment to helping the Afghan government and the Afghan security forces stabilize the situation, and that's going to take years. We can walk away from it, but then we're going to get what we got in Iraq. BLITZER: Basically to what happened before the U.S. got involved in

huge number, because it looks pretty gloomy right now. Ambassador Crocker, always good to get your perspective. Thank you very much.

CROCKER: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: Up next, we'll have more on the breaking news, Russia launching air strikes today for the first time inside Syria. And if they're not targeting ISIS, then who are they targeting? I'll speaking with the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. He's standing by, Mac Thornberry. We'll get the latest when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:22:51] BLITZER: Let's get back to the breaking news. Our top story, Russia, today, for the first time, launching air strikes against suspected ISIS targets in Syria, although U.S. officials don't believe those were the targets. All this coming at the request of the Syrian president, Bashar al Assad.

Let's talk about Russia's new role, what's going on, the U.S. strategy, with Texas Republican Congressman Mac Thornberry. He's joining us. He's the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, thanks very much for joining us.

You're well briefed on what's going on. What is Russia doing now, launching these air strikes north of Damascus in Homs, an area where there apparently aren't a whole lot of ISIS troops.

REP. MAC THORNBERRY (R-TX), CHAIRMAN, HOUSE ARMED SERVICES CMTE.: Yes. Russia is there to support Assad. And it's very clear that even though he has -- is a murder, has used chemical weapons against his own people, he -- Russia sees them as a proxy, an ally to be supported against all enemies, whether it's ISIS or whether it is the more moderate forces that we're supporting. So I think you're seeing a weak, inadequate U.S. policy towards Syria merging with a weak, inadequate U.S. policy that's not working against ISIS, and it's creating this vortex and U.S. national security interests are falling down into it.

BLITZER: Because what's so worrying, Mr. Chairman, is that an hour before the Russians launched these air strikes, they basically notified the U.S. it's about to happen and they then tell the U.S., you know what, you better not fly in that region because it's Russian air space for all practical purposes right now. That's pretty bold.

THORNBERRY: It's very bold. But, remember, this is not out of the blue. They have been increasingly bold over the past few years, not only in Ukraine, but with the submarine routes, the airplane routes that they have taken very close to some NATO forces, and to some NATO countries. So they have become increasingly bold, and nothing ever happens. So it really does go back to that old line that people attribute to Lennon, probe with a bayonet. When you encounter mush, continue. If you hit steel, stop. That's what Putin's doing. [13:25:01] BLITZER: When you hear the secretary of state, John Kerry, or for that matter the president of the United States says maybe there's an opportunity to fight ISIS in coordination with Russia, maybe even Iran, what's your reaction?

THORNBERRY: Despair, because basically what that means is our secretary of state is willing to turn over leadership in the world to a coalition of Russia and Iran to back up Syria. It is -- it is very concerning. You know, what it looks like to me is the administration is willing to just run out the clock. And even though they've got a year plus left, they don't want to engage. They just will sit back and let whatever happens happen. The problem is, the world is spiraling increasingly out of control, and it doesn't look like this White House is even wanting the do something and it.

BLITZER: On top of all of this, the awful situation unfolding in Syria, the humanitarian plight, what's going on in Iraq, look what's going on in Afghanistan, Mr. Chairman, right now, a large city, Kunduz, 300,000 people, a city of approximately the size of Cincinnati right now, Taliban regaining control, Afghan forces fleeing, thousands of civilians evacuating, getting out of there right now despite the tens of billions of dollars the U.S. spent in training these Afghan troops. How disheartening is that to you?

THORNBERRY: Well, it's very discouraging. I was interested in your conversation with Ambassador Crocker a few moments ago. Remember -- and I think he's exactly right, this is headed towards another situation like we had in Iraq. Remember that the military had a plan for how many people they wanted to stay in Afghanistan to provide this advise and assist mission. The White House didn't want to do that. They insisted on getting below 10,000 people.

I was in Afghanistan earlier this month. Most of their advising is now done from Kabul over a videoconference. Well, you can't really see what's happening on the ground when you're doing it over a computer monitor. And so I'm afraid we have, again, cut too fast, too far, and the Afghans were not ready to take up the full mantle of their security responsibilities without us being there to help advise them. And I hope they can turn it around. I think it's very important for our security that we help them turn it around.

BLITZER: And huge challenge for the Afghan security forces, for the U.S., for the NATO allies who are still there. And as you say, about 9,800 U.S. troops still, as we speak, in Afghanistan.

Mr. Chairman, thanks very much for joining us.

THORNBERRY: Thanks for having me.

BLITZER: Mac Thornberry is the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

Up next, Senator John McCain calls President Putin's ambitions blindingly oblivious and he's blasting President Obama for not taking enough action. You're going to hear his words on the Senate floor and a lot more on the breaking news, Russia launching air strikes in Syria, when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)