Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

Decade Dominated By T.V.; Additional Troops Heading To Iraq; U.S. To Send More Trainers To Iraq; Plan To Send 450 Troops; Training Sunni Fighters Part Of New Troops Plan; New Troops To Iraq; Aired 1- 1:30p ET

Aired June 10, 2015 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:26] WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Hello, I'm Wolf Blitzer. It's 1:00 p.m. here in Washington, 6:00 p.m. in London, 7:00 p.m. in Vatican City, 8:00 p.m. in Ramadi. Wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

BLITZER: We've got breaking news in the war against ISIS. President Obama is now planning to send another 450 U.S. troops to Iraq after confessing just days ago that the U.S. lacked a complete strategy for fighting the terrorist group. The White House now says those 450 additional troops will not serve in a combat role but rather will train, advise, and assist Iraqi security forces on the front lines in the Anbar Province. That's been the site of many setbacks recently in the anti-ISIS campaign, in particular the fall of Ramadi in Anbar last month.

The president has also authorized the delivery in weapons and equipment to Peshmerga and tribal Sunni fighters who are under Iraqi command and share a common goal of defeating ISIS. But those weapons will still go through the central Iraqi government in Baghdad.

Right now, the U.S. has roughly 3,000 forces serving in Iraq. With these additional troops, there will be 3,500 or so. Bringing the hundreds of new trainers in will satisfy -- not necessarily satisfy the critics, though, who say the U.S. needs to be fighting more on the front lines and have spotters on the front lines to help in the air war against ISIS.

Let's talk a little bit more about this latest strategy by the White House and the Pentagon. Joining us from West Palm Beach in Florida, retired Lieutenant Colonel James Reese, CNN Global Affairs Analyst and former delta force commander. Also joining us from Irvine, California, Bob Baer, he's our CNN Intelligence and Security Analyst, a former CIA operative. Guys, thanks very much for joining us.

Colonel Reese, on Monday, the president at that news conference in Germany said there was a lack of good Sunni recruits. He said it was delaying the strategy in Iraq. Today, the White House says that more trainers will be sent directly to Anbar Province to start directly training those Sunnis. Colonel, what changed between Monday and today? Because they -- Monday the president said there were more U.S. trainers than needed. They can't even find the recruits.

LT. COL. JAMES REESE, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, Wolf, you know, between then and now is you had the discussions with the president by the Iraqi president, Abadi.

BLITZER: Prime minister.

REESE: He's asking for help. I'm sorry, the prime minister, correct. And we've known that. And central command and the Pentagon has had these -- they've got these phased plans going in. They're set with these things. So, if the president makes a decision, they can move quickly. I think this shows that the U.S. is committed, even though I think it's a dribble of support, from my perspective. But it shows that perspective.

There are some concerns about the Sunnis, but I also think it shows the Sunnis that we are committed, that if they get the people coming to these bases, that we will have people to train. The other thing, though, to keep in mind is those extra 450 to 500 soldiers, they're not all trainers. Half of them, because they're going to stand up a new base, at minimum half, they'll be for security and logistics and all those other places. So, you've got to look at that number really, Wolf, for what it is.

BLITZER: Bob Baer, the -- in the statement, the White House made it clear, and I'm reading now, these additional U.S. troops will not serve in a combat role, will augment the 3,100 U.S. troops who have already deployed to Iraq. Because the big criticism is the U.S. really needs combat troops on the front line, spotters if you will, to help pinpoint those air strikes, right?

ROBERT BAER, CNN INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY ANALYST: Well, Wolf, I think it all goes back to the fact that the central government, the Abadi government, is not particularly competent. I mean, it's still a sectarian government. The army is still not being paid like it should be. Weapons going to the Kurds are not getting through. It really hasn't assembled Sunni support. So, the more we get in there, the more this is starting to look like mission creep.

And, frankly, I don't think that we can turn this around without U.S. combat soldiers. I'm not recommending that. But only we or the Iranians, which is not a very good alternative, can really change this. Because, right now, the Islamic state is still on the move. Yesterday, they were tacking around Baghdad. They're on the move in Syria and everywhere else. I don't see this stopping. And we need a change in strategy. Four to 500 more trainers is a start but not enough.

[13:05:13] BLITZER: The statement also says, Colonel Reese, that the U.S. will provide weapons to the Peshmerga, the Kurdish fighters, to Sunni tribal fighters as well, moderate Sunnis in Anbar and elsewhere. But only -- and these are the key words, only, and I'm reading now directly, in coordination with the central government in Baghdad, meaning it's all those weapons that eventually might wind up in the hands of the Kurds or the Sunnis have to go through the central government. You know those Sunnis and Kurds, they don't trust that Shia-led central government, do they?

REESE: Well, there is a mistrust, at some points, all right? And Prime Minister Abadi is trying to get this trust back. But this is where, again, the advise and assist role is across the spectrum, not just with the combat soldiers going out. It's with the logistics. It's the supplies. It's the leadership. There should be a diplomatic advise-and-assist mission going on right now to continue to help the Iraqis. We can't just pick and choose who we want to get to. If we're going to support the central government of Iraq, then we have to do it this way. But we need to have the oversight and help the Iraqis learn and assist them to get these weapons where they need to go, especially in Arbil with the Kurds and then out best in the Sunnis and Al Anbar.

BLITZER: Yesterday, Bob, I spoke the Iraqi ambassador to the United States. He was here with me in the studio. He blamed the United States, saying the U.S. abandoned Iraq at the end of 2011 when the U.S. pulled out all of its troops. He also made a point several times to say the U.S. left Iraq at that time without a single fighter plane remaining in Iraq. So, what do you make of his point that, at least partially, the U.S. is to blame for the disaster that has occurred in Iraq over these past few years with the strength of ISIS?

BAER: Well, Wolf, I don't agree with those comments at all. There was a status of forces agreement. They asked us to leave long before that, three years before. We left a lot of equipment. Make -- the country is making a lot of money in oil. They could have bought their own aircraft. We left a well-trained army. Maliki, the previous prime minister, just hollowed that army out with militias. Lots of that money was stolen. A lot of that equipment because they gave up to the Islamic state in June. I don't hold us responsible for this at all. Iraq is a failed state. And they're barely doing any better now.

And, Wolf, I think the situation is so dire that, you know, I keep on hearing rumors that the Kurds are furious and -- with the Abadi government. They're not getting enough weapons, the weapons meant for them. They're not getting oil income and they're talking about just breaking away from Iraq which would be a huge step. But I don't know that's going to happen but it tells you how bad things are.

BLITZER: All right, we'll see what happens. Guys, this is a major development today. We're going to stay on top of it. Colonel Reese, thank you. Bob Baer, thanks to you as well.

We're going to have much more ahead on this major U.S. decision to send yet -- send yet more troops into Iraq. We're going to get reaction from both sides of the aisle up on Capitol Hill. The Senate Intelligence Committee member, James Risch, is standing by to join us. The House Intelligence Committee ranking member, Adam Schiff, he's standing by as well.

Plus, after new information comes to light, police are back in neighborhoods near the Clinton Correctional Facility in Upstate New York where two convicted killers escaped over the weekend. We have new information coming in. Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:12:11] BLITZER: Let's get back to the breaking news. Our top story, the White House decision to send as many as an additional 450 troops to Iraq to train anti-ISIS forces there and to send more weapons to Sunni, Shia and Kurdish Peshmerga fighters.

Joining us now from Capitol Hill is the California Democrat Congressman, Adam Schiff. He's the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee. Congressman, thanks very much for joining us. I want to get some perspective on what's going on in Iraq. Here is what the president said back at the end of 2011. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: So, today, I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year. After nearly nine years, America's war in Iraq will be over.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right, America's war in Iraq clearly is not over. What happened?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA), RANKING MEMBER, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Well, I think the Maliki government, as Greg (ph) Baer was pointing out, really hollowed out the military force that we had trained up and equipped. And as a result, enflamed these sectarian tensions and he continued to marginalize the Sunnis and what we helped build up collapsed. And this points out, I think, one of the central challenges going forward and that is we can help the Iraqis win battles, but they're not going to stay won unless these political sectarian problems are addressed.

So, this potential troop increase that it looks like the administration will move forward with, I hope it's accompanied by a new commitment from the Iraqi government that it will really step up the integration of Sunnis in the military force, of Sunnis in the governance of Iraq so that the Sunni tribes can be peeled away from ISIS. Otherwise these incremental increases in American troops or the spotters that many of my GOP colleagues want, none of this is going to make much of a difference if we can't get those Iraqi tribes peeled away from ISIS.

BLITZER: Yesterday, the Iraqi ambassador to the United States was here on our program. He blamed the U.S., at least in major part, for abandoning Iraq, pulling out all those U.S. forces at the end of 2011, not even leaving one fighter jet to fight the enemy. What do you say to the ambassador?

SCHIFF: What I would say to the ambassador is that's what the status of forces agreement required. We made an effort to extend our troop presence there and Iraqis didn't want it. Some Iraqis said, privately, they wanted us to stay but, publicly, they weren't willing to sell the idea to their own people. So, the Iraqis are very good at blaming others but, unfortunately, the responsibility for the deterioration in Iraq over the last several years and the growth of ISIL can be laid at the feet of those Iraqi leaders who govern it in a purely sectarian way. It's, I think, just a matter of plain fact that these Sunni tribes are not going to want to submit to an Iraqi government that doesn't include them. And even worse, that they perceive as being run out of Tehran.

[13:15:05] So that is a governance problem that the Iraqis are going to have to address and no amount of American military training is going to overcome that. So I hope that part of the bargain for any additional American troops on the ground there in a training capacity is a real commitment that we will arm the Sunnis, we will train the Sunnis, we will incorporate the Sunnis into governance because that political problem still hasn't been addressed.

BLITZER: As you know, when the U.S. pulled all of its troops out of Iraq at the end of 2011, about 200 or so were left behind, mostly to protect the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. But since then, it went from 200 to 500 to then 1,000 to then 1500, 2,000, now 3,000, now today announcing another 450, about 3,500. Already you're hearing the critics say this is mission creep reminiscent of what started in the '60s in Vietnam to which you say?

SCHIFF: I say this is something we have to be on guard against and it is very much a risk, although I think, frankly, some of the other things that we're doing pose a much greater risk of escalation. The special forces raid, for example, in Syria, where we captured or tried to capture Abu Sayyaf and resulted in his killing, that had a lot of risk associated with it, probably more than sending additional trainers to Iraq. Had one of our pilots or one of our Delta Force people ended up in a cage the way that poor Jordanian pilot did, you can imagine the pressure to escalate then.

So there is a real risk of escalation here. It's part of the reason why I'm so emphatic about trying to address the political problems in Iraq because I'm just not willing, and I don't think the American people are willing to put Americans in risk, in harm's way, to try to solve political problems for the Iraqis.

BLITZER: You want Congress to pass legislation authorizing the use of military force against ISIS in Iraq? It's - the war has been going on now for ten months. We keep hearing about legislation. It doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

SCHIFF: Well, it hasn't gone anywhere, obviously, and that's a great tragedy and frankly we have only ourselves and Congress to blame. It's our constitutional responsibility. We have seen some moves I think in the Senate. Tim Kaine has been one of the leaders on this. Frankly, we've been much less successful in moving this issue forward in the House. I plan to offer an amendment to the defense appropriations bill that will require us to have a vote and authorization to use force. We'll see if I can be successful with that.

BLITZER: Congressman Schiff, thanks very much for joining us.

SCHIFF: Thanks, Wolf.

BLITZER: Up next, we'll get a different perspective. A Republican take on the new strategy tweak as far as the war in Iraq is concerned. Idaho Senator James Risch, he's a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he's standing by. We'll discuss what's going on.

Plus, there are so many questions surrounding the escape of two convicted killers from a maximum security prison in upstate New York. Now police may be getting some of the answers they need. We have new details. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:21:44] BLITZER: Let's get some more now on the breaking news. The White House announcing it's upping the U.S. military commitment in Iraq. As many as an additional 450 troops could soon be headed there to the Anbar province to help Sunni forces get ready to try to fight ISIS. Up on Capitol Hill, joining us right now is the Idaho Republican senator, James Risch. He's a member of the Senate Foreign Relations and the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Thanks very much, senator, for joining us.

What's your reaction when you heard this latest development?

SEN. JAMES RISCH (R), SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE: Well, Wolf, I think it's pretty ubiquitous up here that people are looking at that and saying, OK, what's the purpose of this? Our problem is, we can't get a clear definition of what the strategy is in the Middle East, let alone what the specific strategy is for Iraq and, for that matter, for Syria. And so I think people want to help, people want to do something, but the question is, what's the point here? What is the goal? What are you trying to accomplish?

BLITZER: The Pentagon put out a statement which concluded with these words defining their strategy, "this effort, -- the latest development, another 450 troops - "this effort is in keeping with our overarching strategy to work with partners on the ground to degrade and ultimately defeat ISIL," or ISIS. That's their strategy. Is that good enough?

RISCH: Well, it's pretty general. I mean, we all want to do that. We all want to defeat ISIS, ISIL, Daesh, whatever you want to call it. Everybody wants to do that. Our difficulty is, is how you do that. What - when you talk about "work with our partners," OK, what are you talking about? You know, these 450 are supposed to train Iraqi troops.

Now, we've had two really serious disappointments with the Iraqi troops. The first one was when ISIS first crossed into Iraq and two divisions just dissipated. They dropped their weapons, uniforms, and went home. The second one was the Ramadi. There were substantially more Iraqi forces there than there were of ISIS and yet, again, they fled. So, you know, they - we've got to have a better strategy than this general statement to what you're talking about.

BLITZER: So what's your recommendation, senator? What would you do? RISCH: Well, I think, first of all, they need to negotiate with

Congress a specific strategy on the Middle East and then drill it down to the - to Iraq and to Syria. I think one of the things that needs to be done - it's always left out of this equation -- are the - are the people in Iraq who are actually willing to fight. You've got the Kurds there who are good friends of ours who are fierce fighters who are willing to do what we ask them to do. They come to Washington, D.C. all the time to ask us for help. The administration says, no, we have to go through Baghdad for that. So that's one thing that could be brought into the equation.

But simply to - look, this - this - we either should or we shouldn't. This middle-of-the-road thing, well, we'll just kind of keep throwing a little bit at it and hopefully this will go away or at least stay as it is until the next administration takes over. This just isn't cutting it. And, meanwhile, everyday ISIS gets stronger and we really need a specific strategy to deal with it. Not just 450 people that they're talking about, well, they're going to train some more. The training isn't the problem. We spent hundreds of millions of dollars training the Iraqis - the Iraqi military forces already. And look what we're getting for it, not much if anything.

[13:25:15] BLITZER: I would say billions of dollars not just hundreds of millions if you add it all up over the decades that the U.S. was deployed there with 100,000, 150,000 troops at some point. You want the U.S. to arm the Peshmerga Kurdish fighters directly. Here's what the White House says in their announcement today. They say this and I'll read it to you. That "this will only happen," the weapons that will go to the Kurds, "in coordination with the central government operating under Iraqi command to ensure that our partners have the equipment needed to effectively fight ISIL." You don't trust the central Iraqi government. You want the U.S. to provide those weapons directly to the Peshmerga, is that right?

RISCH: Well, the words that the White House put out interpreted means, this isn't going to happen, because the Kurds are autonomous. They fight by themselves. They're very good. To try to - look, they've been trying for a long time to coordinate this and it isn't working. The Kurds don't trust the central government in Iraq. The central government certainly doesn't trust the Kurds. This just is not going to work.

Having said that, if we dealt directly with them, I think we would have some success. You know, I deal with both sides all the time. I've watched the performance of both sides. And we know that one is successful and one isn't. So which one would you partner with?

BLITZER: James Risch. Senator, thanks very much for joining us.

RISCH: Thank you so much. Thanks, Wolf. Glad to be here.

BLITZER: All right, thank you.

We'll move on to other news.

They planned their escape with amazing precision but Richard Matt and David Sweat may have had problems with their getaway, but it could be the break that police, law enforcement, need right now. We're getting new information. We'll share it with you when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)