Return to Transcripts main page
LEGAL VIEW WITH ASHLEIGH BANFIELD
Email from ISIS Released; Family of James Foley Reacts to His Death; Pentagon Briefing on Threat of ISIS
Aired August 22, 2014 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, I'm Ashleigh Banfield.
We know who they are. We know where they are. And more than ever, we know what they're capable of. The question today, with ISIS jihadis openly declaring their thirst for American blood, is what the United States is willing to do to stop them. We may get a better idea when the Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby speaks to reporters any moments now. Yesterday, Kirby's boss, the defense secretary himself, Chuck Hagel, branded ISIS, also known as Islamic State, beyond a terrorist group, forcing the Pentagon to, quote, "prepare for everything."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHUCK HAGEL, DEFENSE SECRETARY: They marry ideology, a sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess. They are tremendously well funded. Oh this is beyond anything that we've seen.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: The world is still reeling from the group's cold-blooded slaughter of American journalist Jim Foley, whose parents now have made public the very last venomous e-mail that they received from Foley's captors. It's dated August 12th and it reads in part, quote, "today our swords are unsheathed towards you. Government and citizens alike. And we will not stop until we quench our thirst for your blood. You do not spare our weak elderly women or children, so we will not spare yours. You and your citizens will pay the price of your bombings in Iraq, the first of which being the blood of the American citizen James Foley. He will be executed as a direct result of your transgressions towards us."
Now listen to what Jim's father told NBC about that message.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN FOLEY, FATHER OF JAMES FOLEY: Well, we hadn't heard from Jim's captors since December. And, you know, I actually was excited to see an e-mail, despite the conclusions they would execute Jim. We -- I underestimated that point. I did not realize how brutal they were. And I actually hoped we could engage in negotiations with them, if they were willing to send us any sort of communication, because we'd had none prior.
(END VIDEO CLIP) BANFIELD: Such a stoic family. I want to talk more about the global threat that the Obama administration from the president on down has termed "cancer." Terrorism expert and author, as well as CNN national security analyst Peter Bergen joins me live now from Washington. Alongside from Columbus, Ohio, we welcome Peter Mansoor, who is a retired U.S. Army colonel, CNN military analyst and also the former executive officer to General David Petraeus during the Iraq War surge.
And, Colonel, if I may begin with you, is it possible that what happened on video to Jim Foley and the global broadcast of it has awakened a sleeping giant?
PETER MANSOOR, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, let's hope so. This is the first of many atrocities that this group will commit. And it's not just the United States that needs to wake up to that fact, but it's Europe as well, because many Europeans have been captured by groups such as this and the European governments have shamefully given ransoms to this group, and these groups, in order to get their people back. But we can -- we can, you know, feel for them in the humanitarian sense, but all it does is causes groups like this to seize more western hostages in order to finance their very barbaric activities.
BANFIELD: Peter Bergen, you know, earlier today the family of Jim Foley spoke out, not just his parents, but also two of his sibling, and his brother suggested he was upset with how America dealt with the negotiation process. Understanding fully about paying ransom and how dangerous than can be as a precedent and also as a funding tool, but that there are other means, meaning prisoner swaps, perhaps much like the Bowe Bergdahl swap. Is this something that you could foresee the Americans engaging in?
PETER BERGEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: I think it's highly unlikely because in the Bowe Bergdahl case it really was a prisoner of war exchange. I mean the Taliban was treating him as the prisoner of war and we treat the inmates at Guantanamo as prisoners of war. So that's very standard.
You know, what the Foley family has said I think could also be interpreted in a slightly different way, which was, there was a hostage rescue operation conducted over the weekend of July 4th. It came up empty. But if that operation had been conducted a little bit earlier, those hostages might have still been there. They were being held in that location for some period of time. And that's a big what if that perhaps they were referring to.
BANFIELD: And I want to just play for anyone who may not have seen this interview that was conducted with Yahoo! what Michael Foley, who is Jim Foley's brother, who was sitting alongside his sister, Katie Foley, said about this very notion. Have a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARK FOLEY, BROTHER OF JAMES FOLEY: You can accomplish both things. The United States could have done more on behalf of the western and American hostages over there and still, you know, dealt with the broader worldwide issues. And other nations have done that and that's been a source of frustration for me. And I really, really, really hope that in some way Jim's death pushes us to take another look at our approach, our policy to terrorists and hostage negotiations and rethink that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: Again, Jim Foley's siblings speaking earlier today about what's happened in the aftermath of the execution of their brother.
If I could ask you, Peter Bergen, the very tough words -- and a reminder to our viewers that on the right-hand side of your screen we're awaiting the Pentagon briefing any moment. It's a weekly briefing, but there is a lot to speak of today. The notion that there is this now ramped up rhetoric it seems from the defense secretary himself and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs himself yesterday suggesting, a, we may need to take this battle to Syria and, b, expect anything. Do you foresee this getting to be a tougher war of words or do you think the Pentagon may have to dial this back in light of the fact we still have at least one open threat against Steven Sotloff who's being held by ISIS?
BERGEN: Oh, this is a political decision and General Dempsey was just voicing his military opinion that if you want to destroy ISIS, you have to go into Syria. That's just a fact. But at the end of the day, General Dempsey will take the orders from the Obama administration about whether or how or if to do that. And, you know, I think he's just -- his comments are factually true, but at the end of the day, it's not - it's a political decision that's not his decision.
BANFIELD: And, General Mansoor, this is such a complicated issue. When starting to speak of Syria and the idea that the Joint Chiefs, you know -- the head of the Joint Chiefs suggested that this may end up being a battle against ISIS in Syria, there are so many insurgent groups that are different and battling amongst themselves, I dare say, as well as battling the Assad regime there. If America decides to take this battle to ISIS over the Syrian border, could that also be perceived as effectuating an assist to Bashar al Assad?
MANSOOR: Well, I think some people might view it that way. But, look, this border, in fact, no longer exists. ISIS doesn't recognize it. And they've moved people back and forth routinely. If we were to attack ISIS only in Iraq, it would simply move back into Syria and metastasize again. And so General Dempsey's right, it has to be dealt with on both sides of this nonexistent border. And we're going to need better intelligence in order to attack it effectively in Syria, otherwise we will be attacking a lot of groups that aren't privy to the conflict between the United States and Iraq and this very virulent and deadly terrorist group that we need to defeat, not just contain.
BANFIELD: I just gave you quite a promotion calling you general, colonel, I apologize for that.
But, Peter Bergen, to that notion that the colonel just spoke of and that is the intelligence gathering, the need for it, I think everybody has said that since 9/11, particularly that there is a critical need for what many people term dirty intelligence as opposed to satellite intelligence. But has the game changed at all in the last year given the notion of the sheer brutality that ISIS is known to exact on its prisoners? Being a dirty intel officer is an extraordinarily dangerous prospect. Is it more dangerous now than ever and more difficult to achieve?
BERGEN: Well, I think it's not only just the intelligence picture, just the picture of just generally of what's going on in Syria is extremely obscure. And that's because - I mean one of the reasons we're here talking about this, of course, is James Foley's tragic death. He was a freelancer. He wasn't working for "The New York Times" or "The Washington Post." The freelance organization, "Global Post," that he worked for didn't -- made every effort to get him out.
But the fact is, it's incredibly dangerous. The numbers of journalists covering foreign news is much smaller than it was in the past. I mean when Colonel Mansoor was General Petraeus' executive officer in Iraq, there was a huge, very effective press corps there. We don't have anything similar in Syria right now. So it's not only the intelligence picture, just the open source picture. And you do get some of that from social media, but it's quite distorted because it's often very partisan and for one side or the other. So, you know, I think any kind of decision about what to do in Syria is very much hampered by the fact that we simply don't know very much about what is really going on on the ground.
BANFIELD: And I just want to, again, draw our viewers' attention, if you're just joining us, you'll see on the right-hand side of your screen that the Pentagon briefing is expected to start soon. So we're waiting for Rear Admiral John Kirby to take to the live microphone to update us. This after some pretty striking comments yesterday from his boss, Chuck Hagel, the defense secretary, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs as well, stepping up the government's description of what the government considers a cancer, and that is ISIS and the spread of ISIS control throughout the cradle of civilization, effectively.
If I could ask you this, colonel, what could grow wrong? I mean it's easy to suggest going after ISIS when you're sitting in this chair on this side of the ocean. But what could go wrong? What kind of domino effect could happen by broadening the battle, possibly even on the ground, against ISIS?
MANSOOR: Well, the danger is if the United States is seen as taking over the fight against ISIS. Then ISIS can paint this as a battle of Islam against the great Satan and get actually more followers to flock to its banners. And this is why the United States has to tread a very fine line between supporting Iraqi efforts and Kurdish efforts and other efforts to combat ISIS and make it an Islam on Islam fight and then going too far and painting it as sort of an American jihad in the Middle East against the terrorist group.
So we're walking a fine line. I don't think we're going far enough just yet but that may be because the Iraqi government has not been completely formed yet and we're still waiting for an inclusive government to -- in Baghdad in order to get the Iraqis together. But once that happens, the United States is going to have to step up its game without going over that line that makes us the primary combatant in the region.
BANFIELD: Yes, I think it was Don Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense, who put it as the number of known knowns and known unknowns makes it a very tricky guessing game when operating like this, especially in this region.
Peter Bergen, just quickly, your thoughts about the notion that right now, as there are several Americans being held hostage, one in direct threat right now, the journalist who was pictured in the same execution video as Jim Foley, Steven Sotloff, do you expect that there are several or any special operations being conducted as we speak?
BERGEN: Well, I don't know is the short answer, Ashleigh. But, I mean, of course the plans for such an operation must be front and center. But there are many risks. And we've seen (INAUDIBLE), a British aid worker was rescued by U.S. special operations in 2010 and she died in the rescue attempt when a U.S. Navy SEAL dropped a grenade that killed her. So, yes, you have contingency plans for such operations. But, you know, they're fraught with risks. And, of course, ISIS is keenly aware that already one operation was launched and so they're presumably going to be very careful.
We have two other Americans who haven't been publicly disclosed. Their names haven't been disclosed. So it's not just the "Time" freelancer that we also saw in the Foley video. And, of course, there are other westerners still being held from other European countries.
BANFIELD: Yes, of course. And, as always, our thoughts go out to those families who are waiting and it is just -- it's a very difficult time for so many of them.
We're going to take a quick break. If you could stand by, gentlemen, please. And I'm just going to again remind us that we're expecting the rear admiral, John Kirby, the Pentagon spokesperson, to come out and address the press corps there. This is a - this is an expected weekly briefing but it's granted. We certainly had some pretty striking comments last night from his boss and so whether that tone will change at all, we're going to get an update as soon as he takes to the mic. Back after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BANFIELD: Once again, we're looking at live pictures of the Pentagon briefing room.
Any moment now -- we were actually expecting this at the top of the hour, but we're 17 minutes in, and we're still waiting for the rear admiral, John Kirby, to take to the mike.
We're told that there won't be a statement per se, necessarily but that the press is going to have an opportunity to ask questions, and clearly, there will be a lot of questions, given what the defense secretary said yesterday regarding the severity of ISIS, the threat that ISIS represents, how this is like nothing we've seen before, and how the chairman of the joint chiefs perhaps went even further, suggesting that this campaign may have to go all way to Syria, not specifying what action that campaign might actually be comprised of.
But it is estimated that dozens of Americans and hundreds of Brits are fighting in Syria and/or Iraq in the service of ISIS. That in itself is just sort of a bizarre notion. But the prospect of Westerners bringing their jihadist techniques back home to their respective countries certainly does add a whole new dimension to the threat.
CNN's Brian Todd has been following that angle, and he joins me live now from Washington.
While we heard yesterday, Brian, that the threat overseas may be ramped up and may be a whole new picture, a whole new ball game, essentially, does that mean the threat here in the United States is the -- you know what? I'm going to interrupt myself only because the rear admiral is taking to the mike.
Let's go live.
REAR ADMIRAL JOHN KIRBY, DEFENSE DEPARTMENT PRESS SECRETARY,: Everybody, sorry I'm late. I know I'm terribly late today. I do want to just say something right at the outset and then we'll get to your questions.
We are very concerned by the movement of a Russian convoy across Ukraine's border. We strongly condemn this action and any actions that Russian forces take that increase tensions in the region. Russia should not send vehicles, persons, or cargo of any kind into Ukraine, whether under the guise of humanitarian convoys or any other pretext, without Kiev's express permission. This is a violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity by Russia.
Russia must remove its vehicles and its personnel from the territory of Ukraine immediately. Failure to do so will result in additional costs and isolation. We're currently consulting with the International Red Cross and other international partners. And as we have more details to provide on what we know, we'll certainly do that.
Lita.
QUESTION: Does the U.S. consider this an invasion? And is the U.S. taking any action, either calling any counterparts overseas either in Ukraine or in Russia?
KIRBY: It's certainly unauthorized entry into the Ukraine by -- by this convoy, and we are consulting, as I said, with international partners right now about next steps. I don't have anything additional to add at this time. And I think, again, in my opening statement, made it very, very clear what we expect of Russia.
QUESTION: But no phone calls or anything yet with either -- between the administration and...
(CROSSTALK)
KIRBY: This is just happening today, so I'm not aware of any outreach today by -- certainly by this building. And I won't speak for other agencies in the federal government. I would remind you, though, I mean, the secretary did talk to Minister Shoygu just a few days ago, and the minister guaranteed, was his words, that there would be no military intervention using the pretext of humanitarian relief and, in fact, assured us that there would be no military members as a part of this humanitarian convoy.
QUESTION: You said under the guise of a humanitarian convoy. Does the U.S. -- U.S. have evidence that there are military forces and military equipment?
KIRBY: I'm not prepared -- I'm not prepared to speak to the specific evidence at this time. We've made our position very, very clear, that they should not be doing this under the guise of a humanitarian convoy, to use that as an excuse to -- to cross the border in an non-authorized way. We have a lot more work to do here, and I think we'll sort this out throughout the day. I think you'll hear more from us throughout the day.
Joe?
QUESTION: Admiral Kirby, on Iraq, we heard yesterday Secretary Hagel and Chairman Dempsey talking about the long-term strategy. Could you give us a sense what -- what does it mean? Are we going to face to see changes in regards to the current operation right now in Iraq?
KIRBY: I think what the secretary was referring to -- and I'm pretty sure the chairman was referring to -- was that we need to have a regional approach here and interagency and an international approach about this threat proposed by this particular extremist group, ISIL, and that -- and that this was -- this would take time to develop this kind of multilateral and multinational approach to dealing with this threat.
The president himself said that this wasn't going to be over in a matter of weeks. I think we all recognize that this group didn't grow up overnight. They didn't get the capabilities that they got overnight. We've been watching this for a while, and that we all recognize it's going to take a while.
But just as critically, Joe, it's going to take a while for everybody, not just the United States military. And the secretary was clear about this yesterday. You're not going to see the answer to all ISIL problems through a military lens. We're a component; we're a tool. We are conducting operations inside Iraq against this group, in support of Iraqis and Kurdish forces, but we're not going to be the only tool in the toolbox that can or should be used.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) Admiral, do you -- do you know, does the Pentagon know what's the size of ISIL in Iraq and in Syria? Are we talking about 10,000, 20,000? Do you have any -- any numbers?
KIRBY: It's a difficult number to get at, Joe. And we -- believe me, we've asked ourselves that question. It fluctuates a lot. It changes, if not weekly, then certainly daily. I mean, it's a constant fluctuation, so it's hard to pin it down. This isn't a classic army, you know, with an order of battle that you can just take a look at a map and say, "This is how many they have."
Clearly, it's thousands. There's no question about that. But it changes every day. And as you -- as we've talked about, you know, they -- they have free flow across that border between Syria and Iraq, which for all intents and purposes doesn't exist for them. So it's very difficult to pin it down to a given number.
Yes?
QUESTION: To go back on Russia for a minute and another question, is it not accurate that you now estimate there might be up to 18,000 troops near that border between Russia and Ukraine? And isn't the reality that you have seen very recently a number of additional heavy weapons, including SA-22 surface-to-air missiles and long-range artillery, go across? And my second question is, can you bring us up-to-date on this threatening encounter the Chinese military has had with the U.S. Navy this week in the air?
KIRBY: OK, there's a lot there, Barbara. Let's start with Ukraine. I'm reticent, as I typically am, to give a hard number on Russian troops arrayed along the border. I have said for several weeks now that it's north of 10,000. I believe it is still north of 10,000. We do believe that they continue to add to their battalion tactical groups there along the border. And...
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) well north of 10,000?
KIRBY: I'm going to stay where I've stayed, which is it's north of 10,000. It does fluctuate. Now, we have seen a consistent increase in the last week or so. I haven't exactly seen troops moving away. They have certainly added and reinforced those -- those troops.
But again, I'm really reticent to get into numbers. It's hard for -- for us here in the Pentagon to give an exact order of battle for another military's forces when, you know, you're not there with them. So, well north -- north of 10,000. I think that's -- that's fair to say.
More worrisome than the number is the readiness and the capability that exists in these battalion tactical groups. They are, as I've described before, combined arms capable: armor, artillery, infantry, air defense.
They're very ready. They're very capable. They're very mobile. And they continue to do nothing but just increase the tension on the other side with Ukraine.
Just as -- and this gets to your second of three questions. The -- just as worrisome is the continued support to the separatists, which continues to this day and does include heavy weapons systems, air defense systems, artillery systems, tanks. So we're seeing -- we're seeing a lot of hardware going across that border on a routine basis.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) KIRBY: Well -- it's hard to believe. I think strange (inaudible) to think that this equipment's not moving across the border, accompanied by Russian forces. I wouldn't get into an estimate right now.
But again, let's not get fixated on the numbers. And we tend to drill down on that. I mean, I think what's -- what's more worrisome is the capabilities, the capabilities that exist in those troops on that side of the border, and the capabilities that continue to find their way into separatist hands or in support of separatists actions. That's the real problem, and that's what needs to stop.
Now, you asked about China. And I know you may have seen a press report on this. So let me give you a little bit of a -- I'm going to just give you an update here about -- about it, in case you weren't following. But on the 19th of August, an armed Chinese fighter jet conducted a dangerous intercept of a U.S. Navy P-8 Poseidon aircraft, patrol aircraft, that was on a routine mission. The intercept took place about 135 miles east of Hainan Island, in international airspace.
We have registered our strong concerns to the Chinese about the unsafe and unprofessional intercept, which posed a risk to the safety and the well-being of the air crew, and was inconsistent with customary international law.
Also, it undermines -- and we've made this clear, that it undermines efforts to continue developing military-to-military relations with the -- with the Chinese military. So that's where we are now.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
KIRBY: It's difficult to say with precision, but, within 30 feet of the P-8, very, very close, very dangerous.
QUESTION: Is it correct as they went within 30 feet they moved around the U.S. aircraft over, under, around it at close range?
KIRBY: We believe that they -- they made several passes, three different occasions, crossed under the aircraft with one pass having only 50-100 feet separation. The Chinese jet also passed the nose of the P-8 at 90 degrees with its belly toward the P-8 Poseidon, we believe to make a point of showing its weapons load out (ph).
And then they flew directly under and alongside the P-8, bringing their wingtips, as I said, to within 20 feet. And then conducted a roll -- a roll over the P-8, passing within 45 feet. So...
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
KIRBY: I mean a roll. I'm not an aviator, so I'm not good talking with my hands. But basically, if here's your P-8, you've got fire (ph) going over like this, so -- pretty aggressive and very unprofessional.
As I've said, we've registered our concerns very strongly to official diplomatic channels with the -- with the Chinese. This kind of behavior, not only is unprofessional, it's unsafe, and it is certainly not keeping with the kind of military-to-military relationship -- relations that we'd like to have with -- with China. Did I answer your question?
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: Do you have photos or video?
KIRBY: I believe there's imagery of it, Jim. I don't know. We'll have to -- we'll have to get back to you on that. I'm not sure.
QUESTION: And also, I'd like to follow up on Joe's (ph) question.
