Return to Transcripts main page

LEGAL VIEW WITH ASHLEIGH BANFIELD

President Says No Troops to Iraq, Other Options on Table, Careful to Protect Americans Abroad; Fate of Baghdad

Aired June 13, 2014 - 12:00   ET

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


BARACK OBAMA, U.S. PRESIDENT: Now Iraq needs additional support to break the momentum of extremist groups and bolster the capabilities of Iraqi security forces.

We will not be sending U.S. troops back into combat in Iraq, but I have asked my national security team to prepare a range of other options that could help support Iraq security forces and I'll be reviewing those options in the days ahead.

I do want to be clear, though. This is not solely or even primarily a military challenge. Over the past decade, American troops have made extraordinary sacrifices to give Iraqis an opportunity to claim their own future. Unfortunately, Iraqi leaders have been unable to overcome too often the mistrust and sectarian differences that have long been simmering there, and that's created vulnerabilities within the Iraqi government, as well as their security forces.

So, any action that we may take to provide assistance to Iraqi security forces has to be joined by a serious and sincere effort by Iraq's leaders to set aside sectarian differences, to promote stability, and account for the legitimate interests of all of Iraq's communities and to continue to build the capacity of an effective security force. We can't do it for them.

And in the absence of this type of political effort, short-term military action, including any assistance we might provide, won't succeed. So this should be a wake-up call. Iraq's leaders have to demonstrate a willingness to make hard decisions and compromises on behalf of the Iraqi people in order to bring the country together.

In that effort, they will have the support of the United States and our friends and our allies.

Now, Iraq's neighbors also have some responsibilities to support this process. Nobody has an interest in seeing terrorists gain a foothold inside of Iraq and nobody is going to benefit from seeing Iraq descend into chaos. So, the United States will do our part, but understand that ultimately it's up to the Iraqis as a sovereign nation to solve their problems.

Indeed, across the region, we have redoubled our efforts to help build more capable counterterrorism forces so that groups like ISIL can't establish safe haven, and we'll continue the effort to support the moderate opposition in Syria, support for Iraq and its security forces, and our partnership with other countries across the region.

We're also gonna pursue intensive diplomacy throughout this period, both inside of Iraq and across the region, because there's never gonna be civility in Iraq or the broader region unless there are political outcomes that allow people to resolve their differences peacefully without resorting to war or relying on the United States military.

We'll be monitoring the situation in Iraq very carefully over the next several days. Our top priority will remain being vigilant against any threats to our personnel serving overseas. We will consult closely with Congress as we make determinations about appropriate action. And we'll continue to keep the American people fully informed as we make decisions about the way forward.

I'll take a question.

QUESTION: Mr. President, based on recent U.S. history there, are you reluctant to get involved in any Iraq (inaudible)?

OBAMA: I think that we should -- we'll look at the situation carefully. We have an interest in making sure that a group like ISIL, which is a vicious organization and has been able to take advantage of the chaos in Syria, that they don't get a broader foothold.

I think there are dangers of fierce sectarian fighting if, for example, the terrorist organizations try to overrun sacred Shia sites, which could trigger Shia-Sunni conflicts that could be very hard to stamp out.

So we have enormous interests there, and, obviously, our troops and the American people and the American taxpayers made huge investments and sacrifices in order to give Iraqis the opportunity to chart a better course, a better destiny.

But ultimately, they're gonna have to seize it. As I said before, we are not going to be able to do it for them. And you know, given the very difficult history that we've seen in Iraq, I think that any objective observer would recognize that in the absence of accommodation among the various factions inside of Iraq, various military actions by the United States, by any outside nation, are not going to solve those problems over the long term and not gonna deliver the kind of stability that we need.

Anybody else?

QUESTION: Mr. President. Is the Syrian civil war spilling over the Iraq border...

OBAMA: I think that's been happening for some time. ISIL has been able to gain a foothold in Syria. That's part of the reason why we've been so concerned about it. That's part of the reason why we've been supporting the Syrian opposition there. But it's a challenging problem.

In Iraq, the Iraqi government which was initially resistant to some of our offers of help, has come around now to recognize that cooperation with us on some of these issues can be useful. Obviously, that's not the case in Syria, where President Assad has no interest in seeing us involved there.

And where some of the governments that are supporting Assad have been able to block, for example, U.N. efforts even at humanitarian aid. But this is a regional problem and it is going to be a long term problem. And what we're going to have to do is combine selective actions by our military to make sure that we're going after terrorists who could harm our personnel overseas or eventually hit the homeland.

We're going to have to combine that with what is a very challenging, international effort to try to rebuild countries and communities that have been shattered by sectarian war. And that's not an easy task.

QUESTION: (inaudible) have you been in touch (inaudible). What are they willing to do as part of an international effort?

OBAMA: Well, we're in contact with them now, so we'll have a better sense by the end of the weekend after those consultations. And we will be getting a better sense from them of how they might support an effort to bring -- bring about the kind of political unity inside of Iraq that bolsters security forces.

Look, the United States has poured a lot of money into these Iraqi security forces. And we devoted a lot of training to Iraqi security forces. The fact that they are not willing to stand and fight and defend their posts against admittedly hardened terrorists, but not terrorist who are overwhelming in numbers indicates that there's a problem with morale. There's a problem in terms of commitment. And ultimately, that's rooted in the political problems that have plagued the country for a very long time.

Last question, last one.

QUESTION: Thank you.

Can you talk a little bit about U.S. concern of the disruption -- potential disruption of oil supplies?

OBAMA: Well, so far at least, we have not seen major disruptions in oil supplies. Obviously, if in fact ISIL was able to obtain control over major output, significant refineries, that could be a source of concern. As you might expect, world oil markets react to any kind of instability in the Middle East. You know, one of our goals should be to make sure that in cooperation with other countries in the region, not only are we creating some sort of backstop in terms of what's happening inside of Iraq, but if there do end up being disruptions inside of Iraq, that some of the other producers in the Gulf are able to pick up the slack. So, that'll be part of the consultations that'll be taking place during the course of this week.

Just to give people a sense of timing here, although events on the ground in Iraq have been happening very quickly, our ability to plan, whether it's military action or work with the Iraqi government on some of these political issues, is going to several days. So, people should not anticipate that this is something that is going to happen overnight. We want to make sure that we -- we have good eyes on the situation there. We want to make sure that we've gathered all the intelligence that's necessary so that if in fact I do direct an order, any actions there, that they're targeted, they're precise, and they're going to have an effect.

And, as I indicated before, and I want to make sure that everybody understands this message, the United States is not simply going to involve itself in a military action in the absence of a political plan by the Iraqis that gives us some assurance that they're prepared to work together. We're not going to allow ourselves to be dragged back into a situation in which, while we're there, we're keeping a lid on things, and after enormous sacrifices by us, as soon as we're not there, suddenly people end up acting in ways that are not conducive to the long term stability and prosperity of the country.

All right. Thank you very much, everybody.

QUESTION: Sergeant Bergdahl, now that he's home?

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: There he is, the president of the United States. An important statement by the president, saying he's waiting for the government of Nouri al Maliki in effect in Baghdad to make the kind of decisions that would try to reunite the country, certainly pinning some of the blame on the current unrest on the government in Baghdad itself. And the United States wants to wait to see what Nouri al Maliki's government does before it takes any military or serious political action. Let's assess what we just heard from the president.

Fareed Zakaria is standing by. What do you think, Fareed? The president says this is gonna take us a few days before the United States decides what military action to take if it takes any.

FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, I think what you saw was the president was using what he sees as his moment of maximum leverage with the Iraqis. This is when the Iraqis need the United States.

We got a fascinating window into some of the past (ph) U.S./Iraqi negotiations when he said the Iraqi government was resistant to accept U.S. offers of any kind of help, military training and things like that. When they have now faced this crisis with this terrorist group, they've now changed their minds, and they're willing, and they actively seek American help.

So the president is saying, we now have leverage, so we are going to ask you to make some of the political deals and the political compromises that you have not been willing to make. And unless you make those, don't expect major American assistance.

It feels as though he is putting the pressure on Maliki and staying pretty cool in the face of this very turbulent situation.

BLITZER: And Christiane Amanpour, you listened carefully to what the president said. At one point, he also expressed concern that these -- these terrorists, he calls it is the ISIL, the Islamic State in Iraq and the lavant (ph). Others are like -- others call it the ISIS, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. It's the same thing. Different names called by different people.

But he clearly is concerned also about a potential Sunni terrorist attack by these insurgents on Shiite shrines in Iraq, which could further explode the situation.

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CORRESPODENT: Well, that's right. This is an extraordinary situation. And one of the big developments today at Friday prayers was that the leading Ayatollah, the Shiite grand Ayatollah Sistani, has urged Iraqis to take up arms and help push back the Sunni extremist terrorists.

That is a big deal. That means that he obviously recognizes that the Iraqi forces are not up to it and that the people need to, and the Shiite people need to gather and help to push them back.

Now, according to Iraq itself, the government claims to be in control of Tikrit -- as you know, Saddam Hussein's hometown, which was in the balance over the last 24 hours. They claim to have pushed them back.

The problem here is according to top U.S. commanders who I've spoken to, on the military side, is that it puts the essential lie, if you like, to the notion that when the United States pulled out in the end of 2011, it puts the essential lie, if you like, to the notion that when the United States pulled out in the end of 2011, they had an able Iraqi force that they left behind. That is not the case, and we've seen it very clearly over the last 48 hours.

Also top U.S. commanders tell me that the Iraqi forces -- all the gains that the U.S. put in over the ten years were reversible. And they reminded me that they had always said that. These were reversible unless they were continually being supported, trained and -- and propped up. They simply don't have the history of any kind of logistic ability. And we've seen them in many other words simply, basically, turn and run.

Iran, apparently, is very keen to help. You can imagine this is right on the eastern border, right on the border with Iran. And they are keen to help to make sure that an al Qaeda type off-shoot doesn't suddenly come into -- into the control there in Iraq.

The main thing that many politicians are telling me, is that what this could lead to, not so much civil war or sectarian war, but a de facto and eventual partition dismemberment of Iraq as we know it.

You've seen the Kurds have moved swiftly. They've taken over Kirkuk, and they have moved very, very swiftly. If these Sunni terrorists are allowed to stay in that -- Mosul or in Anbar Province in that western part, that means that part as shaved off. And that has a link obviously with Syria. And then you have the Shiite heartland from Baghdad on down south.

This was the nightmare scenario that everybody tried to avoid. And on the political side, yes, the president is putting a lot of the onus on Maliki, but when you don't have any forces or any big stick left in Iraq, you don't have leverage.

And to be frank, the Maliki government has been asking for a long, long time now for weaponry. Because this is -- yes, it's come to head over the last 72 hour, but as you've seen, there have been a lot of terrorism going on in Iraq, a lot of ISIS just getting stronger and stronger, spilling over the border from Syria over the last several months.

And they have asked to military help and they haven't got it yet. Some weapons systems may be going in.

But to think somehow Maliki, the prime minister, Maliki is going to be able to make the political unification and unity that he needs to without a lot of help and a lot of prodding and a lot of pushing is -- many people believe that he's just simply not able to do it.

BLITZER: You're look at live pictures of Marine One just taking off from the South Lawn of the White House with the president and the first lady. They're heading over to Joint Base Andrews.

We haven't seen in a while, the White House for a few years was not letting us show live pictures of Marine One take off from the South Lawn of the White House. We just saw that right there after the president's very important statement on the situation in Iraq, making it clear the U.S. has no intention of sending troops back into Iraq, no troops on the ground.

But other options are being considered right now, including airstrikes, drone strikes, whatever.

Arwa Damon is in northern Iraq for us right now. Arwa, you've spent a lot of time, you were there in 2003 covering the war. You've been there so long, all these years since.

How do you think the president's admonition to Nouri al-Maliki, the Shiite-led prime minister, Shiite-led government in Baghdad is going to play? Will they take the steps to try to work, to try to bring in Iraqi Sunnis, create some -- a semblance of a more unified people, a unified government that the United States is basically demanding as a precursor before the U.S. takes any military assistance?

ARWA DAMON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, one really just has to look at Iraq's recent history and Prime Minister Nouri al- Maliki's actions.

At every single step of the way, he has publicly made pledges and promises to the United States, to the various Sunni and Kurdish factions, that he would be developing an inclusive government, and at every single step of the way, he has done nothing except further alienate the Sunni population.

The president was saying that everything that is transpiring right now is perhaps a wake-up call for the Iraqi government. Many will tell that you that it's a wake-up call to the United States.

If they are going to once again gamble on Maliki, bearing in mind that their gambling on him in the past has miserably failed, it's one of the main reasons why we have the situation we have today. It's very difficult to see what sort of additional pressure they're going to be able to put on him once they have in fact provided him with the kind of support that he needs.

Any sort of military or other action, any sort of perceived support by the United States towards the Maliki government is going to only further enrage the Sunni population, not only against the United States, but against the Shia, as well, unless there are initial concrete political steps that are taken.

The Americans in the past have banked on al-Maliki. He has failed them. They're going to have on think very hard and very clearly on how much they want it rely on Nouri al-Maliki at this very critical stage in Iraqi history once again.

BLITZER: It's a tense, tense moment indeed.

I want every to stand by. Arwa will be back with you, Christiane, Fareed. We've got other -- our reporters, our analysts are all standing by.

Much more of our special coverage, the breaking news out of Washington, the president has now ruled out sending U.S. troops back into Iraq, but he's not ruling out other military action.

He says the United States doesn't want to get dragged into another conflict in Iraq. He wants to make sure that the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki does the right thing, reaches out to everyone in Iraq before the U.S. decides what to do.

Our special coverage continues in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back. We're following the breaking news, President Obama just making a very important statement.

There you see live pictures from Joint Base Andrews. Marine One, the helicopter, has just landed with the president and the first lady. They will be boarding Air Force One to take them out west on a previously scheduled visit, including a commencement address over the weekend out in California.

But the president making it clear the United States is not going to be sending troops back into Iraq, but other military options are on the table right now. Once again, we want to welcome our viewers in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. Let's get some military analysis of what we just heard from the president. Retired General Mark Kimmitt is here in Washington. He's joining us.

General, what do you think? The U.S. is moving an aircraft carrier from the Arabian Sea into the Persian Gulf, closer to Iraq. As you know, there are a lot of fighter planes, fighter aircraft on an aircraft carrier.

What do you anticipate the options are? Because right now the president says he's not going to do anything unless Nouri al-Maliki's government in Baghdad steps up and does the right thing trying to deal with some sort of reconciliation.

BRIGADIER GENERAL MARK KIMMITT, U.S. ARMY (RETIRED): Well, first of all, let me say I'm glad to see the president finally acknowledging that he can no longer disengage from Iraq and the consequences of that disengagement.

And I think what we heard just now was a new policy of the United States to reengage ourselves in Iraq. Whether we like it or not, he is recognizing that we have interesting in Iraq and that there are threats in Iraq that are an existential threat to the United States.

So I as a soldier personally appreciate what the president has said and glad to see that he's recognized the importance of doing something about this current situation.

Now, as to what can be done, clearly by bringing an aircraft carrier into the Persian Gulf, that gives the Iraqis the capability to ask for 24 hour -- 24/7 air support against the ISIS forces coming up and down the roads. and a lot of other capability, intelligence, surveillance, recognizance.

So that's a pretty potent 70,000-ton piece of American foreign policy that's steaming into the Gulf right now.

BLITZER: It's going to take a few days for that aircraft carrier to reach the destination, presumably the northern part of the Persian Gulf, not far from Iraq itself.

Michael Holmes, you've spent a lot of time covering the situation in Iraq over the years. I guess the key question now is, is Nouri al- Maliki going to do the right thing that would in fact open the door for a renewed U.S. military involvement, no troops on the ground, but other U.S. military involvement to try to help the Iraqis deal with this threat from these Islamist insurgents?

MICHAEL HOLMES, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: I think, Wolf, it would involved a complete turnaround of the man's personality.

Nouri al-Malaki from the very start has concentrated power around himself. He controls the interior ministry, the defense ministry, all the key ministries, so not only shutting Sunnis out of the political process, he's surrounded power around himself. It's not in his makeup to say, OK, now I'll reach out to them and try to bring them in, the way he promised to do years ago and failed to do.

The question -- there's two questions there. He has no currency with Sunnis now, so they might not even trust him now.

The other question, it's probably time to have a discussion, I'm sure there are discussions understand way in Iraq, about how long he can last.

Now he was reelected of course to a controversial third term, is yet to form a government, however. There are some splits in the parliament. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that other factions within the Iraqi parliament might turn on the guy, get rid of him.

The danger in that, it's not in his personality to go. He's been long described by Sunni as a Shiite Saddam-lite. And he's not the type of man to give up power easily. He's certainly shown that sort of personality in the past.

But whether he -- if he reached out to Sunnis now, whether they believe a word out of his mouth is going to be problematic, I think, Wolf.

BLITZER: You see Marine One has just touched down at Joint Base Andrews outside of Washington, D.C. The president and the first lady, they will getting off of Marine One, walking over to Air Force One to take them out west on their previously scheduled visit.

Barbara Starr, you first reported for us that this aircraft carrier will be moving from the Arabian Sea up to the Persian Gulf, the George H.W. Bush, with a lot of fire power on that aircraft carrier.

But the president is making it clear in his remarks that the United States is not going to get dragged back into a situation. The United States can't do what the Iraqi government isn't won't do, and we see so many Iraqi troops simply abandoning their positions, taking off their uniforms, and giving up their weapons.

There's the president and the first lady.

Barbara, this is a serious problem. The president says he's in no rush to deal with it. It's going to take several more days.

BARBARA STARR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And not a direct U.S. military solution, Wolf.

The Pentagon has made it very clear over the last 48 hours that it has a lot of concerns about any kind of military option for Iraq. They, too, believe that Maliki needs to step forward and first there has to be any political movement.

If it was to go to military action, I think a couple of things the president said really are key words that give us an indication of his thinking. He said any military action has to be targeted, precise, and effective, and that is the problem -- targeted, precise, and effective.

Right now the U.S. doesn't have the intelligence to carry that out. They could start flying reconnaissance flights from that aircraft carrier, trying to gather more intelligence, but that, too, is going to be very tough.

I think -- and the president said another thing in there that we all need to listen, that he would be careful to protect Americans who work abroad, concern about the Americans at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.

If the violence were to reach Baghdad, the U.S. embassy is an extremely secure installation, but they have to also be thinking about what if they had to evacuate the U.S. embassy and get several hundred Americans out of Baghdad.

Having military power in the region close by gives you a better ability to do that, if it comes to that. That is perhaps the worst case scenario for the United States. But the Pentagon likes to have all the options out there, have everything planned out, in case any president of the United States calls for them.

Wolf?

BLITZER: And the president said he wants to study this over the next, in his words, "several days," but they may not have several days given the fluid situation unfolding, Barbara, right now.

STARR: Well, that's right. By all accounts, these fighters, these ISIS fighters are perhaps dozens of miles away from the belt of cities around Baghdad and Baghdad itself.

So on of the key intelligence calculation is, does ISIS really want it go all the way to Baghdad and start challenging the government there? Does ISIS want to go and take the capital? And what kind of fighting, what kind of unrest would then emerge?

With the Iranians also sending their Quds Fighters in there, it could get extremely nasty, Wolf. And Iranian troops are moving in, in fact, right now, to bolster the government of Nouri al-Maliki.

Barbara Starr, thanks very much. We're certainly going to stay on top of this story here on CNN throughout the day.

But we'll take a quick break. Much more after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)