Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

U.S. Response to Crisis in Iraq

Aired June 19, 2014 - 14:00   ET

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

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: President Obama announcing that the U.S. government will be sending up to 300 military advisers to Iraq. He said that these troops will not be returning to combat. They will be serving to retrain Iraqi troops and also to provide intelligence.

He did leave the door open for further military action. He said he would consult Congress if there was anything he decided to do but at this stage, he seemed to be putting more of an emphasis on gathering intelligence and on a diplomatic effort, an effort to get the Iraqi government which is run by the Shiite leader, Nuri al-Maliki, to be more inclusive bringing in Sunnis.

One note we should make is President Obama referred to the militia terrorist group ISIS continually as -- by another name that it's referred to, ISIL. It's the same organization, ISIS and ISIL. It depends on whether or not you will want to refer to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant. The Levant is in much wider swath of territory stretching from parts of Turkey to Egypt, Jordan, et cetera.

I want to bring in chief political analyst Gloria Borger and Michael Crowley, the chief foreign affairs correspondent for "TIME" magazine.

Gloria, President Obama talking about sending troops but really emphasizing and saying, let me repeat, they will not return to combat.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Right. They will not return to combat. He said, when asked by Jim Acosta, that he was, of course, concerned about mission creep. He didn't intend for there to be any mission creep. So he wanted to sort of get that out there. But at the same time, he also said, quote, "We will be prepared to take targeted and precise military action if we conclude the situation on the ground requires it. So he didn't -- he didn't rule that out.

He did make the case that he thought this could become a very dangerous sanctuary for terrorists. So he was making the case to the American people about why he needs to send these 300 so-called military advisers. Clearly not something he wants to do but something he feels like he has to do.

TAPPER: And, Michael, obviously he said -- that he wanted to make sure that there was not a civil war in Iraq. He wanted to prevent there from being terrorist safe havens. He specifically said that the three interests in taking this action, one, humanitarian to prevent bloodshed. Two, strategic. They want stability in the region. And three, counterterrorism. One could make the argument that involving oneself in Syria has the

same interests and, of course, this crisis was spilled over largely from Syria, of course before that it was spilled over from Iraq.

MICHAEL CROWLEY, CHIEF FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT, TIME MAGAZINE: Yes. That was something that struck me about this press conference is that when the president made his initial statement he didn't talk about Syria. When he was asked about it, I felt like he was a little bit all over the map. He didn't really have a clearance on what is going on there. That has been consistent for a while. The answer is he is getting involved in Syria very reluctantly. But these problems are intertwined in a really demonic way.

And I do think that the long-term solution to fighting ISIS and to bring stability in that region will involve doing more in Syria. You heard the president's former ambassador Robert Ford, by the way, recently saying he could no longer defend his Syria policy, that we missed an opportunity, as Hillary Clinton recommended in 2012, to do more to support moderate rebels, and instead extremists like ISIS field the vacuum here.

Finally, the last point I would make is that so much of what the president said here is that this depends on the Iraqis getting their house in order, Maliki being more inclusive. The concern is that is a wishful thinking. They have had a long time to be more inclusive, to get their political process healthier. I just don't see a lot of reason why it's going to happen now. Especially so much blood is being shed.

TAPPER: Senior White House correspondent Jim Acosta is in the briefing room and asked President Obama about his decisions, specifically about how he would prevent from mission creep -- Jim.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Jake. I mean, that is the risk when you send in 300 military advisers, that this could just be sneak preview of coming attractions and there are a lot of Americans, and you heard Democrats up on Capitol Hill raise a lot of questions as to whether or not boots should be put on the ground.

Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, said he doesn't think ant boots should be put on the ground in Iraq. And so the president said very strongly, when I asked that question of him, that American troops are not returning in a combat role in Iraq. But I think another key question here, and this really goes to the president's decision-making here because he made a decision for a full withdrawal back in 2011. He did say that it was Nuri al-Maliki's decision not to provide legal protection to American troops, and that was the reason why residual forces weren't left there.

But I followed up on that question about residual forces because that has been the criticism. That if those residual forces have been left in place, that perhaps you wouldn't see things going up in flames right now across northern parts of Iraq and the president there really laid the blame squarely at the feet of Nuri al-Maliki saying that he was not willing to give the United States that kind of deal that provided the legal protection that he wanted, that the U.S. wanted in order to leave forces on the ground there.

There are critics, as you know, Jake, who say the president could have argued more strongly for that kind of agreement. But that -- you know, that is the past. That is not present. And so the president is saying that this is not the beginning of a long protracted engagement in Iraq. If anything, he sounded very cautious about the fact that that is not going to happen -- Jake.

TAPPER: Chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour in New York.

President Obama at this stage of his presidency somebody who is reluctant to use military force. Here you see him sending troops, sending up to 300, what he called military advisers, to Baghdad. But he was very cautious about how they would be used and emphasized repeatedly that they would not be fighting in Iraq.

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, he did what everybody has been suggesting is absolutely required right now. He laid out the case for why this was in America's vital national interest, that they could not allow that part of Iraq or Iraq as a whole to become a safe haven for the kind of terrorism that has threatened an attack. The U.S., the West and so many other parts of the world over the last several years. That's number one. He made that case.

He also said that these are advisers, he says specifically that Baghdad and parts of northern Iraq in joint operations centers, working with the Iraqi forces and the aim apparently is to beef up their ability for intelligence. Obviously coordination and to give some morale, some real training, refreshment course, for heaven's sake. They needed these troops, and perhaps to stiffen their spine to go out and fight.

You see that they have stopped (INAUDIBLE) at least the moment, the assault of ISIS and ISIL, as he calls it, on to Baghdad. They are still at that place in Baiji. But what's interesting, I think, also is what he said he is going to be sending John Kerry, the secretary of state, to the region to get regional allies to try to shape some kind of political solution to this and he also obviously meant Iran.

He sent a veiled threat to Iran or a threat to Iran, no, you cannot intervene, to violate this country's territorial integrity but if you believe like we do in being constructive and demanding an inclusive politics for Iraq then you, too, can be present. And as I said, many experts believe that the only way to keep Iraq whole and democratic is to have all the relevant players, the U.S., Iran, Saudi, the Gulf, all of the neighbors around, plus the parties in Iraq to absolutely work on a new governing principle of inclusion and to go forward from there.

And that is really urgent that that starts right now. And he's sending secretary of state to try to start that.

TAPPER: Senior international correspondent Arwa Damon is in Erbil, Iraq, north of Baghdad, in the northern part of the country. Arwa, President Obama talking about sending up to 300 military

advisers and he seemed to be emphasizing protection for Baghdad. He said specifically that initially they will be looking at the perimeter around Baghdad to make sure that area is safe. That would mean that northern Iraq where you are in Erbil, at least not immediately a priority.

ARWA DAMON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Right. But this part of the country is also by and large being secured by the Kurdish fighting force, the Peshmerga, who have managed to at the very least stop ISIS and its Sunni allies advance into territory that they deem to be keys or areas where there is a majority Kurdish population or the oil-rich city of Kirkuk.

But they also are very worried about what next steps may be taken. There is a realization here and amongst a lot of other senior politicians that we have been speaking to that if the U.S. takes military action or even perceived as being by the sheer act of sending advisers to work with the Iraq security forces and siding with the country's Shia population is only going to aggravate the Sunnis.

Because remember ISIS is not fighting on its own. According to what we're hearing it only makes up a small fraction of this force that is trying to barrel its way towards the capital of Baghdad. The large bulk of it is made up of those former Sunni insurgents, troops that were very active here during the U.S. occupation of Iraq. And also Sunni leaders who feel at this point in time that they may as well make their bed with the devil, ISIS, because they feel that strongly that Shia Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is not going to make the necessary political compromises.

No matter what promises he makes he's never actually going to stand up to them and, therefore, they feel as if military action, the type that we're seeing right now, this insurgency, is the only way to bring him down but also end Shia domination in Baghdad.

When we're talking about political pressure being put on the Iraqi government, that's not just pressure on Nuri al-Maliki to reach out to the Sunni leadership but as the nation moves towards this new government formation process, there has to be, as we have been reporting, as everyone has been saying, an all-inclusive government, but also one that needs to figure out a way to decentralize power to a certain degree -- Jake.

TAPPER: And finally, let's go to chief congressional correspondent Dana Bash on Capitol Hill.

Dana, I'm not sure if there's been any reaction yet. President Obama just minutes ago finished speaking, making this announcement about up to 300 military advisers being sent back to Baghdad to not fight, he urged, he insisted that the U.S. would not be returning to a combat role but to retraining and to gathering intelligence. We've been speaking for the last couple of hours about this. And the reluctance on Capitol Hill for any further military involvement.

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right. No reaction quite yet. As you said, he just finished. But look, there have been members on both sides of the aisle who have been urging the president to do what he just did. Specifically on his answer to our Jim Acosta, which is explain to the American people why Iraq, why stabilizing that country and the broader region is so incredibly important to America's national security.

So even his most staunch enemies, politically here, in Congress, it's going to be hard for them to say that he didn't do that because he -- really elaborated on that. But when you look back, again, at another question that Jim Acosta asked, which is a lot of I told you so's coming from here on Capitol Hill, Republicans like John McCain, Lindsey Graham, saying that the president really messed up in not leaving troops there, he did push back saying that they tried and that the Iraqi government wouldn't allow the troops to have immunity which is critical.

But that's not going to satisfy a lot of his opponents because they simply think that he -- he pushed for that in a half-hearted way. He wasn't really serious about it. He never wanted to keep U.S. troops there and that if he had the kind of robust leadership that many of these Republicans watched him to have with vis-a-vis Iraq, that those U.S. troops, that residual force wouldn't have left and that perhaps wouldn't have gotten here.

Now should have, would have, could have, we are where we are. But that debate is not going to end.

TAPPER: And I'm sure we'll be hearing much more from members of the House and Senate in the coming minutes and hours.

That's it for me. I will be back at 4:00 p.m. Eastern on "THE LEAD." Our coverage of President Obama's news conference on Iraqi continues with Brooke Baldwin right after this quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Let's pick up where Tapper left off. I'm Brooke Baldwin. Thank you so much for being with me here on CNN.

Big news from the White House. Moments ago the president announcing this huge decision on U.S. involvement in the bloody upheaval in Iraq. Obama says 300 military advisers here -- it's very important the wording. Military advisers, not forces, heading to Iraq. He did leave the door open to, quote, "targeted and precise military action if and when it is necessary."

All of this, as the president had just come out with the meeting with his top National Security team. Here he was.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: First, we are working to secure our embassy and personnel operating inside of Iraq. As president I have no greater priority than to the safety of our men and women serving overseas. So I have taken some steps to relocate some of our embassy personnel and we have sent reinforcements to better secure our facilities.

Second, at my direction we have significantly increased our intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets so we got a better picture of what's taking place inside of Iraq. And this will give us a greater understanding what ISIL is doing, where it's located and how we might support efforts to counter this threat.

Third, the United States will continue to increase our support to Iraqi Security Forces. We are prepared to create joint operation centers in Baghdad and northern Iraq, to share intelligence and coordinate planning to confront the terrorist threat of ISIL.

To our new Counterterrorism Partnership Fund we're prepared to work with Congress to provide additional equipment. We have had advisers in Iraq through our embassy and we're prepared to send a small number of additional American military advisers, up to 300, to assess how we can best train, advice and support Iraqi Security Forces going forward.

American forces will not be returning to combat in Iraq. But we will help Iraqis as they take the fight to terrorists who threaten the Iraqi people, the region and American interests as well.

Fourth, in recent days, we've positioned additional U.S. military assets in the region. Because of our increased intelligence resources, we're developing more information about potential targets associated with ISIL. And going forward, we will be prepared to take targeted and precise military action, if and when we determine that the situation on the ground requires it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: So that was the president speaking a little while ago.

Let me just -- let me pause. See the little box on that -- the bottom part of your screen. This is a busy day at the White House. The president just finished giving that statement and responding to some questions from the White House Press Corps. And next we're waiting to see the president bestow the nation's highest honor, the Medal of Honor on a Marine. So stand by, we'll take that as well momentarily.

But on Iraq, President Obama stressing that the future of Iraq is in the hands of its own people. All of this as ISIS, the president kept saying ISIL, same group, continues its onslaught. This group has been leaving a bloody trail from the Syrian border to the far outskirts of Baghdad in barely a week.

So let's continue this conversation, Jim Acosta, who -- was in that briefing, asked a question of the president. Therefore, to the White House, as is our chief political analyst, Gloria Borger, our Arwa Damon in the northern part of Iraq in Erbil, our senior international correspondent, and Colonel Rick Francona, CNN military analyst.

Jim Acosta, you were there. I just want to begin with you.

ACOSTA: Yes. BALDWIN: You know, the briefing or I should say the statement 45

minutes late. The president who'd come out of this National Security meeting, you know, and the headline clearly was this 300 U.S. military advisers may be leaving open other options down the road. You asked the president in your follow-up if he had any regrets not leaving anyone, a team, a U.S. military team behind? What was his response to you?

ACOSTA: That's right, Brooke. And it really was follow-up question to the question I asked of the president whether or not he's concerned about sending these military advisers in, 300 military advisers in, and whether or not that will turn into some sort of mission creep meaning that that force would not be enough potentially down the road and he'll have to send more and more and more, and get the United States involved in a civil war in Iraq.

And that really opens up the door, Brooke, to the question of whether or not the president should have left a residual force behind in Iraq in 2011. As you will recall, he was running for re-election in 2012. The political debate was already under way. And this president wanted to keep his promise to end the war in Iraq to have a pull -- a total pullout of U.S. forces from that country and so that's what happened in late 2011.

But now because of the crisis in Iraq and the violence that's exploded there, the question has been asked upon Capitol Hill, does the president regret that decision and so I posed that question during the briefing and here's what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: You wish you had left a residual force in Iraq? Any regrets about that decision in 2011?

OBAMA: Well, keep in mind that wasn't a decision made by me. That was a decision made by the Iraqi government. We offered a modest residual force to help continue to train and advise Iraqi Security Forces. We had a core requirement which we require in any situation where we have U.S. troops overseas and that is that they are provided immunity at the -- since they are being invited by the sovereign government there so that if, for example, they end up acting in self- defense if they are attacked and find themselves in a tough situation, that they are not somehow called before a foreign court.

That's a core requirement that we have for U.S. troop presence anywhere. The Iraqi government and Prime Minister Maliki declined to provide us that immunity.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: And so you get the sense from listening to the president, Brooke, that he was really -- it was almost as if he was presenting the back and forth going on in the situation room among his advisers, you know. He was sort of talking on the one hand and on the other hand, and I think the president has really gotten himself or has found himself in a box here. He does not want to commit U.S. forces in a combat role, obviously.

But at the same time as you heard during that statement that became a news conference, he clearly does not want to see Iraq descend into a situation where you could see terrorists having a safe haven in that country. And I think that's why the president is take thing this cautious step that he is today -- Brooke.

BALDWIN: Right. No one wants that. He's -- he is stepping cautiously, Jim Acosta.

And, Colonel, here's my next question. Because it seems to me, as I was taking notes, when the president specifically said positioning U.S. military assets in the region, want to get more information of potential targets if and when we, the United States, determine the situation on the ground if it requires more.

What he didn't say there, but what jumped out at me is the more potentially air strikes because we know you have to have intelligence for air strikes behind the scenes, DOD saying, they don't have that yet. Might these 300, you know, military forces, personnel, provide the eyes on the ground for airstrikes and possibly future.

COL. RICK FRANCONA, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Yes. I think that's a fair assessment. I mean, some of the other phrases that lead us to believe that there are going to be more than just adviser on the ground, creation of joint operation centers in Baghdad and in northern Iraq. They are going to be controlling operations. That means they're going to be in there with the Iraqis down probably at the brigade level.

And this is, you know, what advisers do. But you're right. When he says that we are going to take precise and targeted -- targeted and precise military action if and when necessary, that leaves open the possibility of pending airstrikes and I just get this feeling that, although he specifically said, we don't mission creep, this is how it starts.

BALDWIN: Does that concern you if there were to be air strikes?

FRANCONA: No. I think that air strikes could be effective if they are targeted, you know, as he says precisely. And we need the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets that are being moved to the area right now. Because these kind of fighters present a real problem for targeting because they are not being targets. They are small. And usually FAA to attack these kind of targets is very, very difficult without precise intelligence. What you need are attack helicopters and A-10s which I do not think he wants to employ.

BALDWIN: OK. So there is the military.

Arwa Damon, to you, in Erbil, Iraq, then there is the issue with leadership. The president said Iraqi leaders must rise above the differences talking and have to presume about the current leader, Nuri al-Maliki. The issue, the U.S. in support of this notion of a centralized government, does the Shia leader, clearly we have seen -- and by the way, this has been going on for years. The infighting between the Shia, the Kurd and the Sunni. So if there were to be a new leader, how can Iraq be sure that that

leader will not turn into the next sectarian leader, you know, bypassing the other sects? Does that make sense?

ARWA DAMON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. I mean, look, this is going to be an issue that the country is going to have to figure out on its own. But the country needs to be given a chance to do so. And right now this clear issue is the capability and the leadership of Shia Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. A lot of the politicians saying it's not just about removing him. It's about removing his policies, this concept that anyone in political power in Baghdad is running a centralized government.

Moving forward there needs to be a certain level perhaps of decentralization, a certain level of autonomy when it comes to provincial governance. Is there that one man that can unite all of Iraq at this stage? We don't know. But someone needs to be given a chance.

You know, it's been quite interesting listening to all of the debate that's been going on. Especially when it comes to that issue of Nuri al-Maliki's leadership. Because the U.S. is banking on this man once again. Even with these small number of troops that are being sent in with an advisory role, they are banking on the fact that Nuri al- Maliki to a certain degree is going to uphold whatever promise, whatever pledge, he has made to try to create a government of national unity or at least reach out to certain opposition parties.

The Americans are asking for certain level of political lenience on his part. Asking it from a man who has broken just about every single promise he's made. Not just to the Americans but to his own people. So it's quite the gamble there that the Americans are making at this stage. Appearing to perhaps side on the side of the Shias in this conflict -- Brooke.

BALDWIN: The question has become how long does the U.S. allow for that gamble to last before, as you point out, Nuri al-Maliki doesn't do what is right for all the people of Iraq.

Gloria Borger, ending with you, I noticed two different times, there has been questions over how much the president would do solo versus consulting with Congress. And he made it very clear two different times during that statement before the Q&A, he said I will carefully and closely consult with Congress for any of these decisions.

BORGER: Look, I think he's been doing that. You saw that he met with congressional leaders after the Bergdahl affair. It's very clear that this president is going to talk to Congress. But what I'm hearing today from the president is that nothing happens in a vacuum. He told us today that Maliki ought to get his act together. To Arwa's point.

BROWN: Yes.

BORGER: But to Arwa's point also, he's not clear Maliki is going to get his act together. He said, look, it's a democracy. We can't dictate who the government should be. But it was a very clear signal that this president would just assume it weren't Nuri al-Maliki. I don't know if his other choices are any better or any worse. So he left out the possibility, he said, you know, Maliki have been asking for air strikes. He left it out there. He said, you know, we reserve the right to do that. Right now we're sending in these 300 advisers. Let's see what happens. He doesn't want mission creep but he doesn't want to side with Maliki if he's going to get more of the same. And so it's kind of a very delicate dance here with Maliki.