Return to Transcripts main page

CNN TONIGHT

Interview With Tennessee Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn; Interview With California Congressman Adam Schiff; President Obama Lays Out ISIS Strategy

Aired September 10, 2014 - 22:00   ET

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


ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Clearly, we just lost Tom Foreman. This is a smooth transition, eh?

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, stuff happens. It's television. It's live television.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Anderson, good work. Thanks very much.

Good evening to our viewers in the United States and around the world. This is a special edition of CNN TONIGHT. I'm Wolf Blitzer reporting from Washington.

We're following the breaking news. The president lays out his strategy to defeat ISIS, no combat boots on the ground, but what he calls a relentless campaign including airstrikes on targets, ISIS targets in Syria, not only in Iraq.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: I want the American people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil.

This counterterrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out ISIL wherever they exist using our airpower and our support for partners' forces on the ground.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: But has the commander in chief made his case to the American people and to the partner countries around the world who are vital to the plan's success and will it work?

We are here with CNN's team of experts.

Let's begin with CNN's Jim Acosta. He's our senior White House correspondent -- Jim.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, for the last several weeks, President Obama has been the cautioner in chief, cautious about his words, cautious about his actions. But that was not the case tonight.

He is rolling the foreign policy dice, expanding U.S. military operations in both Iraq and Syria, ordering airstrikes in fact in Syria, although there is no timetable yet for the airstrikes. Take a listen to what the president had to say just about an hour ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: Moreover, I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are. That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: Now, up until tonight, the U.S. mission in Iraq going after ISIS has been basically to protect U.S. military personnel and to conduct humanitarian missions. That is no longer the case.

On a senior administration official conference call with reporters earlier this evening, senior administration officials, with the White House said that now the mission is to go after ISIS terrorists wherever they are in Iraq or in Syria.

Now, part of that involves ramping up the capabilities of Iraqi forces on the ground in Iraq. And so the president is ordering 475 U.S. military service members to go to Iraq to begin that mission. That brings the total there, Wolf, to 1,600 U.S. military personnel.

But we were told on this background conference call with reporters that no U.S. military personnel will go into Syria to duplicate that mission there. Although they do want to arm, train, equip those moderate opposition forces in Syria, they're not sending U.S. military personnel on the ground in Syria to conduct that part of the operation.

One other thing that is important to point out, Wolf, on this conference call. The president has been talking about a global coalition. Saudi Arabia, very interestingly, will be a big part of that coalition. On that conference call earlier this evening, a senior administration official said Saudi Arabia will be hosting anti- ISIS fighter training, so that is where a lot of those Syrian rebels will be going for their training.

They won't be trained by U.S. personnel on the ground in Syria. It sounds like they will be trained in Saudi Arabia -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Jim Acosta over at the White House, thanks very much.

A key question tonight: Has the president made his case? Can he count on support from Congress?

Joining us now, Representative Adam Schiff, Democrat from California. He serves on the Intelligence Committee. And Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican from Tennessee, she's the vice chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Congressman, thanks very much for joining us.

Well, Marsha Blackburn, first to you. Did the president make his case effectively?

REP. MARSHA BLACKBURN (R), TENNESSEE: Wolf, I think the president laid out the beginnings of a plan and a strategy.

I did think that what we are missing in this, he didn't speak to our allies. And he didn't define the coalition. Those are things that I know my constituents with Fort Campbell, a major military post in my district, that is something that they are wanting to hear and what they want to know.

BLITZER: What about that, Congressman Schiff?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D), CALIFORNIA: Well, I viewed this really as the opening state, not the closing argument.

I think, in the weeks to come, the president will have to set out, OK, what are the coalition partners going to do? What are our regional allies going to do? The Saudi willingness to host this force I think is very significant. Most of what the Gulf states are willing to do has been only covert.

The fact that they would so openly take on ISIS this way may be quite a significant shift for the Saudis. And if we can get everyone on the same page in terms of who they would be behind, that also would be a significant shift.

Earlier in the conflict, I think the Saudis, the Qataris, the Kuwaitis, the Turks, they were willing to throw money and arms at anyone who would fight Assad. And that has helped to create this problem. There may be convergence now on who we ought to get behind.

BLITZER: Congresswoman Blackburn, are you with the president when he says he does not need additional congressional authorization to launch airstrikes against ISIS targets in Syria?

BLACKBURN: Wolf, I would prefer that he would come to Congress and that we give that authorization.

I think that looking at what he laid out tonight as being the beginnings of his strategy, he talked about following what we have done in Somalia and Yemen. And where we have seen al Qaeda really grow and what is still the strongest of the al Qaeda affiliates, they're in Yemen.

And they're exporting terrorism. I -- that causes me a little bit of concern. I know it is causing my constituents concern. What we would rather him see -- see him do is be more aggressive and more forthright and go at this full force, not go at it halfway.

BLITZER: To both of you, first to you, Congressman Schiff.

Will you vote for the $500 million the president is seeking to arm what is called those moderate Syrian opposition rebels?

SCHIFF: I have been, as you know, very skeptical about arming the rebels, both because they have not proven to be a cohesive force and they have not proven to be very moderate either.

The game changer for me may be the Saudi willingness to be the host country and if we can get all of the Gulf nations behind the same group of forces. That may be enough to push me over the edge. But I still think in the amount of time it will take to train these forces and the small numbers that we are talking about, there are likely to be just as many foreign fighters who come into the country over the next three years as will be trained up even with a half-a-billion- dollar investment.

So, I think we need to be very realistic about any expectations for this force.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Congresswoman, will you vote for that $500 million appropriation?

BLACKBURN: At this point in time, the president has all of the money that he needs. The levels at the continuing resolution 2014 level are above what the president's initial request has been. So, for right now, he has got the money that he needs.

And as you talk about additional funds, what we need to look at is the sequester that is affecting the military funding and work through that process. I don't think this is going to be something that is done quickly or in haste by Congress. I think you are going to see a very thoughtful approach off to this.

We have to defeat ISIS. We have to make certain that we destroy them and that we push them back. They are where they are in the Middle East. I want to know more about the coalition. I want to hear the president speak to our allies and to that coalition.

BLITZER: Sounds like neither one of you yet ready to vote for that $500 million appropriations request the president is putting forward.

But we will see what happens down the road. Marsha Blackburn, Adam Schiff, thanks so much for joining us.

BLACKBURN: Thank you.

SCHIFF: You bet.

BLITZER: Let's bring in CNN's Dana Bash. She's joining us from Capitol Hill. Also Lieutenant General Mark Hertling, a CNN military analyst, former commanding general U.S. Army Europe and the Seventh Army, and here in our studios, CNN's Jake Tapper and Gloria Borger.

Dana, what's been the reaction so far up on Capitol Hill?

DANA BASH, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: You know, there is a lot of, I told you so going on, particularly in the Republican ranks. You heard a little bit there from Marsha Blackburn, some frustration from Republicans who are glad that the president has laid out the strategy, who are glad that he wants to finally be more robust in helping the Syrian rebels, those that are left to combat ISIS, but not very happy in the way that the president laid it out, because some Republicans I have already talked to think that he was too effusive in the idea that the threat around the world is as low as it is now.

But I think the broader, more important point is the question about whether the president is going to get this authorization that he is seeking. He didn't explicitly talk about what he really wants from Congress. But what it is, Wolf, is not so much about money; $500 million is part of it.

But it's the legal authority that he thinks that he absolutely needs to carry out this strategy. That is to have what has up until been really covert operations be out in the open. Have the Defense Department run these operations to actually train Syrian rebels effectively to combat ISIS.

He need that. He wants it now like in the next two weeks. He's been making calls all day long to try to get that. The question will be whether he will before Congress leaves for probably in about two weeks to go campaign full-time for their midterm elections. We don't know whether that is going to happen.

There will be a meeting tomorrow morning, a really important one, where House Republicans will discuss it and decide whether they will give that to him in the near term.

BLITZER: Congress in session for only two weeks. Then they go out, as you say, to recess to go out and campaign.

Let me play another little clip. Here's an excerpt of what the president said about an hour or so ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: In a region that has known so much bloodshed, these terrorists are unique in their brutality. They execute captured prisoners. They kill children. They enslave, rape, and force women into marriage. They threatened a religious minority with genocide. And in acts of barbarism, they took the lives of two American journalists, Jim Foley and Steven Sotloff.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Jake and Gloria, the president, he had a major, major mission tonight to convince the American public he is on top of it, he has a strategy, and he deserves their support. How did he do?

TAPPER: The American people are already there. They're angry and they're afraid because of the beheading videos that they have seen and because they have been told from national security sources here and there that ISIS does pose a threat, if not right now, to the American people in the homeland, potentially at some time in the near future. So they're already there. So President Obama calling for strikes, as

you know, Wolf, because you and I have covered this in the last few days because of CNN polling, the American people support strikes. They also support President Obama's pledge for no combat troops, no U.S. combat troops and a greater involvement of foreign countries.

I think the question is the details on the strategy that we didn't hear, specifically, as the congresswoman talked about. What are the allies contributing, who specifically, what specifically? As Jay said, that's evolving.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Still a work in progress.

TAPPER: A work in progress is the polite term for it.

BORGER: Let's just take a step back for a moment, because this is a speech the president never intended to give, didn't want to give, has been ambivalent about what he ought to do.

This is a president whose narrative was killing Osama bin Laden, ending two wars. What he did to night when he stepped up to the microphone is he essentially said I am going to get involved in large airstrikes over two countries. He said no boots on the ground, but over two countries, in a conflict that could well outlast his administration, that he would be handing it over to the next administration effectively.

There is no end point to this. There can't possibly be an end point, as Anderson pointed out earlier. I think for the president tonight, this was a very difficult speech for him to give. He has inserted us into the middle of a Syrian civil war. That is also a very difficult position for us to be in.

BLITZER: Let me bring in General Hertling.

General, as you know, the military, when they hear the commander in chief give them an order, they want clarity in the mission, and they also want an exit strategy. Did the U.S. military, the men and women who will be sent over there, did they get clarity on those points?

LT. GEN. MARK HERTLING (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: That is a great question, Wolf, because I was just listening to Gloria. The way I listen to the president's speech, I put myself in the position of my friend, General Lloyd Austin, the combatant commander of Central Command.

I said, what is he hearing right now? I think what General Austin probably heard was, let me get this straight. You want me to expand operations into a country that is having a civil war, where we don't like the leader of the country. We're expanding operations in a country that is still having a religious war and has a little bit of turmoil with their government. You are asking me to train more forces, bring potentially a 40-member coalition together, conduct precision airstrikes where I don't hurt innocents. And I continue to train people to do this operation.

I think General Austin would say, I have got the clarity. The end state is to defeat ISIS and eventually to destroy ISIS. He has been given an expansion of his mission. I think he can do that. He also has, as you mentioned before, some constraints and restraints.

We continue to focus on this phrase that I abhor, which is this boots on the ground. We have got to get to the mission set, what is he being asked to do and how is he expected to do it. When we continue to just focus on the number of individuals he is given as the commander -- we have to give him a clear mission, which I think the president did tonight.

There was a good mission analysis. And I think from a commander's intent, General Austin knows exactly what he has to do with conventional trainer, with special operations forces, and with links to not only our own government, but the governments of Iraq as well as the coalition as they're formed.

BLITZER: General Hertling, I want you to stand by, because joining us now, a man who just left his longtime job as President Obama's press secretary.

Jay Carney is our newest CNN colleague, our senior political commentator.

Jay, as I said to you earlier, welcome to CNN.

Let me play a little clip of the exchange you had in the last hour with Senator John McCain, because I want you to respond. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: Lindsey Graham and I and Joe Lieberman were in Baghdad. They wanted a residual force. The president has never made a statement during that or after that he wanted a residual force left behind.

The Iraqis were ready to go. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the number cascaded down to 3,500. That was not sufficient to do anything but to defend themselves.

And you in your role as the spokesperson bragged about the fact that the last American combat troop had left Iraq. If we had left a residual force, the situation would not be what it is today, and they would not, because there would be a lot...

(CROSSTALK)

JAY CARNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Senator, Senator, I can posit with great respect for you, that we disagree on that.

(CROSSTALK)

MCCAIN: You can't. You don't have the facts. You don't have the facts, Mr. Carney. That's the problem.

CARNEY: Senator, I understand that you present the facts that you believe are true based on the arguments that you made.

(CROSSTALK)

MCCAIN: Not that I believe are true. They are true.

(CROSSTALK)

CARNEY: ... for a long time, sir, that we should leave troops in Iraq in perpetuity.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: That was quite an exchange, Jay, that you had with Senator McCain.

Go ahead. You were there. You were the was press secretary. Make the case why the president decided to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq and not leave that residual force.

CARNEY: Wolf, and we spoke about this. I spoke about it from the podium at the time.

The president made very clear that he was open to maintaining and was pursuing an agreement with the Iraqi government to maintain a so- called residual force in Iraq of U.S. forces after the end of the combat mission. You remember that the agreement to withdrawal troops that he was fulfilling was an agreement signed by President Bush.

But he pursued and was open to maintaining U.S. forces there in a residual force, but only under the condition of a status of forces agreement that would have provided the kind of protections to our men and women in uniform that are absolutely essential.

The Iraqi government refused. And, you know, no amount of saying that he was there and he knew otherwise makes that any less true when Senator McCain says it. Another point about Senator McCain is, go back to 2008. And he talked about maintaining troops, that he could imagine maintaining a U.S. troop presence in Iraq for 100 years.

There is no question that that is not only the wrong strategy, but that that is a strategy and an approach that the American people profoundly rejected. And it was one that then Senator and President Obama completely opposed.

BLITZER: Because the argument that they make -- I say they when I say McCain, Lindsey Graham, the former Senator Joe Lieberman -- they make the case that look at all these years after the Korean War. The United States still has about 30,000 U.S. troops in South Korea.

CARNEY: Well, I think that the comparison of South Korea to Iraq is a weak analogy at best.

Remember that we -- there was absolute chaos and war in Iraq when there were tens of thousand, 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, both in 2004 and again in 2007. And the idea that any number of U.S. troops in Iraq would solve the Iraqi problems that existed in terms of the divisions between Sunnis and Shiites, the failures of the Maliki government, which the U.S. troop presence was helping support at the time, to mend the divisions between Sunni and Shia in Iraq, that somehow a U.S. troop presence was the sole answer to that ongoing problem is just -- it's a misunderstanding of the history.

And I know Senator McCain has always disagreed with President Obama on these policies. I don't find it look likely that he will change his mind. But what he is talking about now, Senator McCain, in terms of what we need how to do actually tracks pretty closely with what the president announced tonight.

BLITZER: Just with historic -- it's hypothetical. But if Nouri al- Maliki's government would have agreed to a status of forces agreement, giving residual U.S. troops immunity from Iraqi prosecution, would it have made a difference right now? Would the situation in Iraq be very different?

CARNEY: I think it is hard to know, obviously, because the situation with ISIS arose out of Syria and the civil war and the conflict there, before metastasizing and migrating to Iraq.

I don't think that a residual force that Senator McCain was talking about or that we in the Obama administration were talking about would have been of the size and effectiveness to prevent necessarily what ISIS did when it moved into Iraq. But it's very hard to know, because all the dynamics would have changed.

It's also important to remember that the Maliki government that so clearly needed to be removed by the Iraqi people, as it was, was a huge obstacle and part of the problem that led to this crisis.

BLITZER: And not only that, but the behavior of the Nouri al-Maliki government was such that as soon as the ISIS troops came in and they emerged in the north from Syria, they went into the second largest city, Mosul in the north. The Iraqi military, which was trained by the United States, financed by the United States, armed by the United States, they simply threw down their weapons and they ran away.

They didn't want to have anything to do with that. That's why ISIS now is in control of Mosul and took all that U.S. weaponry, all that money in the banks in Mosul, and it's turned out to be the disaster that it is right now. So the question, let me repeat it. If the U.S. had 5,000 or 10,000 troops that would have been left behind, would that have made a difference?

CARNEY: Well, it would have made a difference. Would it have made a profound difference is really hard to know.

What it wouldn't have changed necessarily is the failures of the Maliki government. And it certainly wouldn't have been enough in a residual noncombat capacity to take a battle to ISIS. The actions that we are taking now and building a coalition to take are the kinds of things that we need to do to deal with that threat now. The residual force as envisioned by all those who were talking about it would have been focused on further training and supporting Iraqi security forces and providing intelligence. They would not have been front-line fighting in combat.

BLITZER: Jay Carney, our newest contributor here at CNN, thanks very much for joining us.

CARNEY: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: We have a lot more to get to tonight, including reaction in Iraq to the president's ISIS strategy, and we will go live off to the northern Iraqi city of Irbil. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: It's early Thursday morning now in the Middle East, where President Obama's strategy to defeat ISIS will play out.

Our CNN international correspondent Anna Coren is joining us live from the Iraqi city of Irbil. That's in the north. Also joining us, our chief national security correspondent Jim Sciutto. He's here with me. And our global affairs correspondent, Elise Labott, she's traveling with the secretary of state in Amman, Jordan, right now.

Anna, they're getting ready for daylight where you are over there. It's almost daylight. What's been the reaction so far to what we have heard from the president?

ANNA COREN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, it's coming up to 5:30 a.m. so we're yet to get an official reaction here.

But certainly from the senior officials we have spoken to in Irbil, as well as Baghdad, they would be happy with some parts of President Obama's speech, firstly, the systematic airstrikes, obviously the United States expanding their air campaign here in Iraq. That is welcome news. We have seen the results and how effective they are. So obviously that is welcome news, as is going into Syria, taking the fight into Syria.

This is something that certainly that people we have been speaking to here in Kurdistan have said from the get-go must happen to fight ISIS -- and then, thirdly, Wolf, these 475 additional U.S. troops that will work as advisers and will assist in the campaign to coordinate and bring together the Kurds and the Iraqi military forces, because to date they have been working separately.

I think what's important to know, what there will be question marks over is President Obama talking about the new Iraqi government as being an inclusive government. The jury is still out. It is days' old. And two key ministries have yet to be filled, the positions of defense and interior, very divisive, very important roles.

So, we know that the Kurds, they haven't had their demand met. They're saying, OK, we will give it three months. But after that we can pull out of the government. We have yet to get of course that very important Sunni reaction.

Yet we do know that there is that disconnect between Sunni lawmakers and then the Sunni tribal leaders. The other concern of course, Wolf, is these reliable partners in the region. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was here in Iraq obviously showing his support. But now he is going around the region trying to rally support. Are they going to be reliable partners, or merely just lip service? We will have to wait and see.

BLITZER: Like you, I have spoken with a lot of Iraqi experts, especially Kurds and Sunnis, over the past few days. They're pretty skeptical about the new Iraqi government. Let's hope for the best, though.

Anna, stand by. Jim Sciutto is with me here in our studio.

The president did outline a new strategy. He seemed to expand the U.S. military component of it rather dramatically.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Extremely broadly.

First of all, airstrikes, not just against ISIS in Iraq and not just to protect American personnel in Iraq and minorities under threat, the Yazidis, but really anywhere that ISIS is, both inside Iraq and in Syria. This is a massive expansion of the air campaign. You have 475 U.S. troops going there now. That brings the total to 1,700 U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq.

Train and advise, not -- or advise, rather -- they're not going to be in a combat role. But it's still 1,700 American forces now in a war zone, whatever you want to call it. That's a big change.

You remember that early on, when the president first announced airstrikes in Iraq against ISIS, administration officials constantly repeated to us how limited this was going to be, purely to protect American personnel, purely to protect minorities that are under threat. They repeated that constantly.

That is thrown out the window today. The new strategy is, ISIS has no safe haven. And the U.S. will go after them, not only from the air, training and equipment, friendly forces on the ground, Saudi Arabia offering a base to train and equip them.

This is a lot of money. This is U.S. arms. This is advisers on the ground for some time, training them so that they could go take this fight to ISIS on the ground. You know, this is a big change. We talked about mission creep when this first started about a month ago. This is mission creep.

BLITZER: It certainly sounds like it. All right, Jim, stand by.

Elise Labott is traveling with the secretary of state. She's in Amman, Jordan, getting ready to head over to Saudi Arabia, where you are on this day. How is the president's speech likely to be received by so many of these potential coalition partners? ELISE LABOTT, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, in

talking to Arab diplomats, I think they were looking for even a bit more specificity than what they got in terms of what the strategy is and how they could help.

Secretary Kerry does have a huge shopping list when he goes and he meets with gulf leaders tomorrow. He'll also be meeting with Jordanian King Abdullah, the foreign ministers of Turkey, Egypt, Lebanon, all of these countries in the region that feel some kind of threat by ISIS.

And some of them are going to be obviously contributing to the military campaign. Overflight rights, as you said. Jim just mentioned that the Saudis are offering to train and equip on their soil.

But a lot of them will be doing other things. We're talking about drying up the financing of ISIS. That's really considered how they get their cash, is not just stealing money but also those oil exports that are coming from Turkey. The U.S. is looking for them to turn off the spigot there.

Also looking to stop the flow of foreign fighters from a lot of these gulf states. And as we've been talking about, kind of demystifying and delegitimizing the ideology of ISIS, and that's particularly where the regional partners, I think, are going to have an important role. Secretary Kerry will be looking for them to use religious clerics, we're hearing from officials, and also some of these Arab satellite networks, looking for a concerted campaign for the international community to send the message to Sunni Arabs that ISIS is the enemy.

BLITZER: Well, we'll see what Saudi Arabia, for example, does. We know it has a huge air force, a lot of U.S. F-15s, F-16s. They could use -- certainly be used if the Saudis go ahead and authorize air strikes against ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria. That would be a huge, huge development. Let's see what the secretary of state can do in Saudi Arabia.

Elise, thanks very much. Safe travels to you and the secretary.

Up next, was the president successful in getting his message across? Can he really keep U.S. troops from getting involved on the ground against ISIS? Expert analysis coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. Let's talk a little bit more about America's effort to build an international coalition against ISIS. Joining us, the former House speaker, Newt Gingrich. He's a co-host of CNN's "CROSSFIRE"; Van Jones, also a "CROSSFIRE" co-host; and Michael Smerconish, our CNN political commentator, the anchor of "SMERCONISH," which is Saturday mornings here on CNN.

Now let me get your thought, Michael. What did you think? MICHAEL SMERCONISH, HOST, "SMERCONISH": I thought he delivered a

great set of remarks. I think that he's been aided, frankly, by those god-awful beheadings. And frankly, I don't think he needed all that large of a lift. If you take a look at that "Wall Street Journal" and NBC News survey, it tells you that 2/3 of the country was already on board for this, including a third who were supportive even of the notion of ground troops. So there wasn't a very high bar set this evening. I think whatever it was, he met it.

BLITZER: Did the president, Newt Gingrich, meet the expectations? Did he do what you wanted him to do?

NEWT GINGRICH, CO-HOST, "CROSSFIRE": I thought it was a pretty good speech. He's got some very fundamental questions about using Somalia and Yemen as examples of success. He's got a challenge in realizing that the kind of radicalism we're talking about is worldwide.

But overall, this was a much better speech than any Republican would have expected Obama to give. I think it really was a national speech. And I suspect it will be responded to positively by most members of Congress.

BLITZER: When I was listening to the speech, Van, I said to myself, "I can only imagine if this were a speech, let's say a Republican president were delivering. Let's say it was George Bush."

How would liberal Democrats be reacting to the tough words we heard tonight from the commander-in-chief, from the president of the United States? As you know, a lot of liberal Democrats may want to support the president, although they might feel queasy about some of the recommendations he put forward. Give me your analysis.

VAN JONES, CO-HOST, "CROSSFIRE": Well, I think that's right. First of all, I think after the United States comes under attack, liberals and conservatives tend to come together. Pearl Harbor, 9/11, these beheadings. So it's a part of an American pattern for liberals and conservatives to come together. I'm glad that's actually happening. My concern was that even this wouldn't bring us together. It has brought us together.

You're now going to start seeing some liberals raising some concerns. The air strikes in Syria, not exciting for liberals. Hold on a second. It's one thing to clear out ISIS from Iraq where we have some commitments. To open up a new front, you might start seeing some concerns.

Another thing that hasn't been talked about enough today: There's a military part of this. There's also a human part of this. Why are these young Muslims rushing to this despicable group? We have a youth bulge all across the -- all across the world, about a billion young people. Young people need something to believe in. They need something to do.

And America should be a beacon for young people, young idealists who want to make their country better, who want to be a part of the technological revolution. We're not reaching out to these young Muslims and saying, "We need you to be part of science, and this renaissance that's happening. You shouldn't be a part of this barbaric nonsense.

When you give a billion young people no jobs and nothing to believe in, they tend to go the wrong way. So it's not just the military thing. We need world-class leadership to attract a generation of young Muslims to our side of this fight.

BLITZER: Michael Smerconish, when the president says his new strategy in dealing with ISIS in Syria and Iraq will be similar to what he said is the successful strategy the U.S. has pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years, do you agree with the president that that strategy in Yemen and Somalia has been successful?

SMERCONISH: No, I don't think that we've crossed the threshold in either of those countries.

What I heard him say, the first words out of his mouth tonight, he said something to the effect of "Here's what we're going to do with our friends and allies." I thought this was as much a speech that was geared domestically to win support as it was to an international audience, where he was essentially serving notice of a Nixonian doctrine. It was him saying, "We're going to supply funding. We're going to supply the know-how, the technology, the expertise. But you need to supply the troops."

It reminded me, Wolf, that he delivered that commencement address at West Point back in the spring. And although he invoked JFK, and he invoked Ike, really he was thinking about Richard Nixon. But of course, he would never use that name. Because it's very similar to what Nixon said in the height of Vietnam conflict.

And so I think this was as much a speech about serving notice to the Arab world, saying, "Hey, UAE, the Saudis, the Turks, you need to be on board for this."

BLITZER: And very quickly, Newt Gingrich, when the president makes the comparison to Somalia, where al-Shabaab is in Somalia, to Yemen -- al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is in Yemen - is that a fair analysis? Because it seems like ISIS is so much more powerful than either al-Shabaab and or al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

GINGRICH: This is -- it's not just that. And I don't know how that got through the vetting process. Those two countries are failures. The fact that you kill one leader of al-Shabaab means you've got to go find five more leaders. There's a huge al Qaeda in Yemen group tonight.

I cannot -- generally, I liked the speech. I cannot figure out why they had that in there. And I think it's an -- if that's really their goal, they're headed towards a disaster.

BLITZER: He said that's the model he wants to pursue, the Yemen/Somalia model against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

GINGRICH: It's a disaster. BLITZER: All right. Hold on for a minute, guys. Newt Gingrich, I want to thank you. I know you've got to run. Van and Michael, please stay with us.

The American public is deeply worried about terror but wary of war. Did President Obama make an effective sales pitch tonight? We'll discuss that and more when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: Moreover, I've made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country wherever they are. That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency. If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Strong words from the president. Now he has to deliver.

Let's continue our conversation. David Gergen is joining us. He's our senior political analyst, former adviser to presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton. Van Jones, once again still with us, as is Michael Smerconish.

It is intriguing to me, David, the way the president phrased that -- that sentence about launching air strikes against ISIS targets not only in Iraq but in Syria. When he said, "I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria."

Why couldn't he just say, "The United States is going to launch air strikes in Syria"? Why does he have to say, "I will not hesitate," that kind of sort of tentative phrasing?

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: I think, Wolf, probably he needs to get a little more intelligence about where he wants to go. He needs to get his partnerships in shape. So there are not going to be immediate air strikes in Syria. But he certainly opened the door to that. And I think it's very clear there will not only be air strikes against general ISIS forces, but he will target the leaders, just as he's done in Somalia and Yemen.

BLITZER: A lot of criticism, Michael Smerconish, that the president, again, and again, and again, keeps telling ISIS there will be no U.S. combat boots on the ground, no U.S. combat forces. Nobody wants to send U.S. combat forces over there. But the criticism is, why does the president have to keep saying that? What do you think?

SMERCONISH: I think he's not saying it for their benefit. I think he's saying it so that he can build support at home for that which he's about to undertake.

Look, I think he was benefitted tonight by the timing of the speech. And David would probably know better than I about this. It's no accident that it's the anniversary of the 13th anniversary of September 11. That in tandem with those beheadings, I think, gives the president a strong hand. A strong hand that perhaps is causing some to overlook what I think is a necessary debate as to whether there's a vital U.S. interest at stake.

Because what he said tonight, as he said on Sunday on a Sunday morning program, is that there's no intel that suggests that we are directly threatened today but rather our friend and allies are. I think that's a moment worthy of pause and discussion that really hasn't happened yet in our conversation.

BLITZER: What do you think about that? He makes a fair point, Michael Smerconish. Van Jones, what do you think?

JONES: Well, I agree. And that's why I think it's important that he go to Congress and we actually debate this all the way through. I also think he should go to the United Nations. He says he's going in two weeks. We'll see how that works out. I think all that stuff is good.

Again, there's been so much focus on the military part of this, and that is a key element. But, you know, there's smart stuff that he should also be talking about doing.

Why is this terror group so strong? Because they've got a ton of money. Where are they getting the money? From the oil. We should be talking about right now, saying, "If you buy oil, if you buy oil from these butchers, you are on the wrong side of the United States in this fight," and begin to put economic pressure. There's an economic strategy here we haven't talked about tonight, because the president didn't talk about it.

There's a humanitarian crisis here going on for people. The Syrian refugees are suffering. There's other things besides just bombing Syria that we should be talking about if we really want to resolve this crisis.

I think the president got off to a good start. We've got a long discussion in this country before we can actually have a unified intelligent approach.

BLITZER: And ISIS don't -- doesn't only have money as a result of oil. It has a lot of money because it went into Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq, almost 2 million people. A lot of banks there. And they stole about $500 or $600 million, making it the richest terrorist organization by far in the world.

Guys, thanks very, very much.

Coming up, on this, the eve of the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, President Obama prepares to take action against ISIS. Will the plan work, militarily speaking? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: President Obama certainly laid out his strategy to defeat ISIS tonight. Will it work, though?

Joining us now, Lieutenant Colonel Rick Francona. He's a CNN military analyst, former U.S. military attache in Syria. Paul Cruickshank is here, our CNN terrorism analyst, the co-author of a great new book, "Agent Storm: My Life inside al Qaeda and the CIA." And back with us, Lieutenant General, retired, Mark Hertling.

Basically, the president's strategy, four points. I'll put it up on the screen. Air strikes in Iraq and Syria. Arming fighters on the ground. Counterterrorism efforts. Humanitarian aid.

Rick Francona, what do you think? Militarily speaking, how long, realistically, is it going to take for the U.S. military to say "mission accomplished"?

LT. COL. RICK FRANCONA (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: A long time. And I was glad to see that the president included both Syria and Iraq in his planning, because many of us were concerned that we were going to see an Iraqi piece of this and a Syria piece of this. And I hope that we do this as ISIS, as one group. Because they don't recognize that border and neither should we.

That said, and I think General Hertling talked about this in great detail earlier, the Syria piece is going to be the real problem. The Iraqi piece is going to be difficult enough. It's the Syria piece that's going to be a real problem, because if you get -- getting people on the ground in there is going to be very difficult. Finding anybody that's going to be willing to fight ISIS that we can trust is going to be very, very difficult.

BLITZER: What about all the Arab neighbors out there? Anybody in that part of the world, General Hertling, realistically ready to send boot -- combat boots on the ground to destroy, to defeat ISIS?

HERTLING: I think there will be, Wolf. Certainly, the Jordanians are going to provide some intelligence capability. There are going to be several forces which we probably shouldn't name that are going to supply Special Operations forces, which have been training with Americans in very many exercises, not only the ones from the Middle East but also from Europe.

So I think yes, I think that's going to be one of the key efforts. As your bullet points pointed out, those are elements of the strategy. But the two things we also need to talk about is the will of the coalition that's built to see this through. But also the building of the will of the American people to continue to support this. Not just today but in the future.

BLITZER: Paul Cruickshank, I've spoken with counterterrorism experts inside the government, outside the government. They make the point in various fields, where there's action, there's a reaction.

So the United States tonight, the president declared war, in effect, on ISIS. They're going to respond. Will they respond with terrorism against U.S. interests in the American homeland? PAUL CRUICKSHANK, CNN TERRORISM ANALYST: Tonight, the United States may be crossing a red line for ISIS. Certainly, if it gets involved in Syria. That's their stronghold. And ISIS may do what it hasn't done yet and really sort of train these western recruits that they have, up to 1,000 westerners, many of them Europeans. Train them for terrorist attacks back in the west.

I don't think know there's a threat this week or even this month. But in three to six months, this group could mount a terrorist plot against the west, perhaps even the United States. It's got really quite frightening capability. It's got training camps on a scale last seen in Taliban-run Afghanistan, tens of millions of dollars; experienced bomb makers that can train these western recruits.

So a lot of concern that, by going after ISIS, dealing with this long- term threat you're creating a bigger short-term threat.

BLITZER: Well, what do you make of that? That's pretty chilling, Rick Francona. How do you deal with that?

FRANCONA: Yes, that's the problem. And most of these camps are going to be in the Syria are, because ISIS is not stupid. They know that we're going to focus on Iraq first, and then Syria later. And Syria, as I said, presents the bigger problem.

So Paul is exactly right. So we've got the short-term problem that we have to address. And I don't know if we do that with air strikes in Syria right away, which doesn't look like it's going to happen. I think the president was quite clear on that.

So I think there's this window of opportunity for ISIS to get some type of operation mounted. And I think that that's our vulnerability right now.

BLITZER: It might not happen any time soon, air strikes in Syria. General Hertling, is it because the U.S. doesn't have good enough intelligence now to launch these precision air strikes with their Hellfire missiles, drones or F-16 fighters, or F-18s or whatever? Because the U.S. is fearful that a lot of innocent civilians could be killed in the process?

FRANCONA: Well, I think that's certainly a big -- a great big part of that, Wolf.

The precision strikes, and I think that was part of the -- the president's language, as well. That he said, the way he was planning on having the military attack is when the targets come.

When you go into Syria, I think you really want to get the strategic targets, the key leaders. And that's all driven by intelligence gathering on the ground. He's not going to go in as we sometimes used to say, called plinking targets. Small tactical targets. It's got to be the big ones when we go into Syria. We can continue to fight in Iraq against all kinds of tactical and operational targets. But it's the strategic targets that are important.

BLITZER: Mark Hertling, Paul Cruickshank, Rick Francona, guys, thank you very much. We'll take a quick break. More right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Tonight, the president delivered a major speech, outlining a strategy to destroy, to defeat ISIS, not only in Iraq but Syria, as well, including the possibility of launching air strikes fairly soon. The president said he will not hesitate to do so. And he issued a strict warning, a tough warning to the ISIS terrorist out there: "If you deal with the United States, if you try to undermine U.S. credibility, if you threaten Americans, you will pay a huge price." Now the U.S. has to deliver.

That's it for me. Thanks very much for watching. I'll see you tomorrow, 5 p.m. Eastern in "THE SITUATION ROOM."

Up next, much more reaction to the president's speech. Plus major new developments on the Ray Rice scandal. Also, the Michael Brown shooting. Our special edition of CNN TONIGHT continues right now with Don Lemon and Alisyn Camerota.