Return to Transcripts main page

CNN NEWSROOM

Live Coverage as Senate Hearing on ISIS

Aired September 16, 2014 - 10:30   ET

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


GEN. MARTIN DEMPSEY, JOINT CHIEFS CHAIRMAN: So, on the ground, we had the peshmerga and we had the counterterrorist service from the Iraqi security forces, and then, in an operation center in Irbil, we had our own folks using Predator feeds and a system we call the Rover to be able to help the Iraqis manage the battle on the ground.

Incredibly complex. Three languages, English, Kurdish and Arab. And we worked through it. It was -- it was a real challenge, but we worked through it, and as we did, we learned some things about how to use advisers from remote locations.

I'm not saying this will work every place, every time, but we pulled that mission off, and I think it's a good template for future operations.

REED: And -- but I presume one of the areas you're really looking at is these -- these capable Iraqis who can communicate and coordinate on the ground, their -- their special forces particularly?

DEMPSEY: Trained by us, that's right.

REED: Mr. Secretary, we are -- or you are proposing, the president's proposing, to train about 5,000 individuals a year to go back into Syria. The Saudis have agreed to host it in some manner.

How do you integrate these forces back into Syria? Will they go in as units? Will they -- will they -- what's the plan after they're trained, because I think that's part of the issue?

HAGEL: Senator, one of the points that I made a couple minutes ago in answering Senator Inhofe's question was the point about training them as units so they can operate as units, which, as you know with your military experience is critically important as you build an effective opposition force, not just a hit-and-run group of rebels, but an effective force -- command control, tactics, strategy.

And so, yes, that is the fundamental training principle of how we begin.

The length of the time here depends on -- on a number of things, but we're probably talking about eight weeks per cycle. That -- that might move within a week or two. But that's -- that's the intent of how they would train.

The CENTCOM leaders are already focused on that, are already structured to do that, are preparing. And one of the things the president will get tomorrow as he spends the day with General Austin and CENTCOM planners and commanders in Tampa is taking him through that entire structure.

REED: Thank you.

General Dempsey, I think in your remarks or the secretary's remarks, you suggested that the immediate operations would probably most likely be in Iraq, simply because we have the Iraqi national security forces, we're already partnering them, we just conducted strikes. But that will put ISIL in a position of -- as we hopefully become more effective -- of making a decision to reinforce or to respond in Iraq and weaken them in Syria or to pull back into Syria.

So, I think your strategy is probably the most effective use of what we have at the time. But would you like to comment on that?

DEMPSEY: Well, the strategy is to squeeze ISIL from multiple directions so that they can't do what they've been doing, which is maneuver places where they're not under pressure.

So if we can get the government of Iraq to reach out to these populations that have been disadvantaged during the Maliki regime so that the ISIL doesn't have a free flowing stream in which to float, and if we can get the ISF, and we've done an assessment of the 50 brigades of the ISF around Baghdad; we know which one are capable of partnering and improving their capabilities.

If we can get enough of them to go on the offensive, both west and north, get the peshmerga to squeeze from the -- from north to south, and then find a way over time in Syria, initially to disrupt using air power and eventually to pressure using the moderate opposition, then I think we've placed ISIL in an -- in an untenable position -- and in the middle of that, restore the border so they can't flow back and forth freely.

REED: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

LEVIN: Thank you, Senator Reed.

Senator McCain?

MCCAIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the witnesses.

I understand according that, according to your testimony, that we will be training and equipping approximately 5,000 in one year. Is that correct?

HAGEL: Yes.

MCCAIN: Is -- and ISIL, now the estimates are that there are some 31,000, metastasizing in a very rapid fashion into a much larger force. To many of us, that seems like a inadequate response to what...

PROTESTER: (OFF-MIKE)

LEVIN: Would you please -- please be quiet?

I'm asking you now to please leave the room.

Please remove this lady.

PROTESTER: (OFF-MIKE)

LEVIN: Please remove her. The disruptions are not gonna be acceptable to anybody.

PROTESTER: (OFF-MIKE)

LEVIN: I ask you to remove the lady. Please remove the lady from the room. Thank you very much (inaudible).

PROTESTER: (OFF-MIKE)

LEVIN: Thank you.

MCCAIN: I always appreciate special attention from this group, Mr. Chairman.

PROTESTER: (OFF-MIKE) Americans who do not want to go to war again. U.S. out of Iraq and Syria.

LEVIN: Senator McCain?

PROTESTER: Shame on you, Senator McCain.

MCCAIN: And, obviously, this group of 5,000, as you mentioned, in unit size deployments will be back in Syria fighting against ISIL. They will also be fighting against Bashar Assad, which they've been doing for a number of years before ISIL was ever a significant factor.

Now, they will be fighting against Bashar Assad, and Bashar Assad will attack them from the air, which he has done and with significant success, not only against them, but there's been 192,000 people who have been slaughtered in Syria since the onset.

If a -- if one of the Free Syrian Army is fighting against Bashar Assad and he Is attacking them from the air, would we take action to prevent them from being attacked by Bashar Assad?

HAGEL: Senator, let me begin with the first part of your question, the 5,000.

MCCAIN: I dispense with that. I'd like the answer to the question will we -- if the Free Syrian Army units are attacked from the air by Bashar Assad, will we prevent those attacks from taking place, and take out Bashar Assad's air assets, both helicopter and fixed wing, that will be attacking the Free Syrian Army units? HAGEL: Well, we're, first of all, not there yet, but our focus is on ISIL and that is the threat right now ...

MCCAIN: So we wouldn't?

HAGEL: ... to our country and to our interests and to the people of the region. So what we are training these units for, yes, as a stabilizing force in Syria, as an option, but the first focus is, as I just said, as the president laid out in his statement to the country...

(CROSSTALK)

MCCAIN: I take it from your answer that we are now recruiting these young men to go and fight in Syria against ISIL, but if they're attacked by Bashar Assad, we're not gonna help them?

HAGEL: They will defend themselves, Senator.

MCCAIN: Will we help them against Assad's air...

HAGEL: We will help them and we will support them, as we have trained them.

MCCAIN: How will we help them -- will we repel Bashar Assad's air assets that will be attacking them?

HAGEL: Any -- any attack on those that we have trained and who are supporting us, we will help 'em.

MCCAIN: I guess I'm not gonna get an answer, but it seems to me that you have to neutralize Bashar Assad's air assets if you are going to protect these people that we are arming and training and sending in to fight.

Is that inaccurate, General Dempsey?

DEMPSEY: The coalition we're forming, Senator, won't form unless -- if we were to take Assad off the table, we'd have a much more difficult time forming a coalition.

But I think what you're hearing us express is an ISIL first strategy. I don't think we'll find ourselves in that situation, given what we intend to do with the...

MCCAIN: You don't think that the Free Syrian Army is going to fight against Bashar Assad who has been decimating them? You think that these people you're training will only go back to fight against ISIL?

Do you really believe that, General?

DEMPSEY: What I believe, Senator, is that as we train them and develop a military chain of command linked to a political structure, that we can establish objectives that defer that challenge into the future. We do not have to deal with it now. MCCAIN: That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire concept and motivation of the Free Syrian Army. That -- it is Bashar Assad that has killed many more of them than ISIL has.

DEMPSEY: I agree.

MCCAIN: And for to us say that we are going to go in and help and train and equip these people and only to fight against ISIL, you're not gonna get many recruits to do that, General. I guarantee you that. And that's a fundamental fallacy in everything you are presenting the -- this committee today.

General -- Secretary Hagel, was the president right in 2012 when he overruled most of his national security team and refused to train and equip the moderate opposition in -- in -- in Syria at that time?

HAGEL: Senator, I was not there at the time, so I'm limited...

MCCAIN: Well, I'll ask General Dempsey there. He was there at the time.

DEMPSEY: I'm sorry, Senator, when -- when you asked the question...

MCCAIN: Was the president right in 2012 when he overruled secretary of Defense, secretary of State and director of the CIA and refused to train and equip the moderate opposition forces in Syria, which, according to your testimony, we're doing today?

DEMPSEY: Senator, you know that I recommended that we train them. And you know that for policy reasons, the decision was taken in another direction.

MCCAIN: Thank you.

Are you concerned, Secretary Hagel, about our southern border? We received testimony from our homeland security people that our border is porous and the people who are now free to travel to the United States and also other radical elements, might cross our southern border to attack the United States.

HAGEL: I'm always concerned about our border.

MCCAIN: I mean, is that a serious concern of yours?

HAGEL: I think we have to always look at these things...

(CROSSTALK)

MCCAIN: In other words, do you think we have to improve our border security, especially on the southern border?

HAGEL: We -- we can improve our border security.

MCCAIN: Thank you. My time has expired. LEVIN: Thank you very much, Senator McCain.

Senator Nelson.

NELSON: Senator McCain, you're aware that there were published reports of covert training.

MCCAIN (?): Yes, sir (ph).

NELSON: Covert training.

PROTESTER: (OFF-MIKE)

MCCAIN: I'm aware of it, and I'm also aware of the scale of the training that was required. And I'm also aware of the situation today. And I'm also aware that 192,000 people have been slaughtered, a lot of them with the so-called barrel bombs which are -- and the use of chlorine gas, which has caused a humanitarian disaster of incredible proportions. Yes, I'm aware of that.

NELSON: General Dempsey, are you aware of the published reports of covert training?

DEMPSEY: Senator, I -- we don't comment in public about any aspect of covert training.

NELSON: Mr. Secretary, as you know, I believe that the president has the constitutional authority to go on and attack ISIS. This is going to be for the long haul, and eventually this issue will have to come to Congress for authorization for the use of military force. And you all have an appropriations request right now.

My question is, if Congress does not approve, and I've heard some members of Congress say that they're not going to vote to approve this $500 million request, if they did that and refused before we adjourn to go home for the election, what kind of message do you think that sends?

CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: All right. We're going to jump away. We have to take a quick break. We'll be back with much more from the Senate Arms Services Committee on the President's strategy to defeat and degrade ISIS after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSTELLO: Welcome back and good morning. I'm Carol Costello. You're watching live coverage of the Senate Arms Services Committee hearing. Testifying this morning, the Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel; also testifying General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff.

Now so far, two major headlines: General Martin Dempsey says he will send U.S. military advisors into combat if he decides that's necessary which defies the President's promise of no ground troops. Second, the new mission is to destroy ISIS in Iraq but only disrupt it in the Syria. We're going to pause to listen for a moment before we bring in our panel? We're going to bring in our panel right now.

With me now: Jim Acosta, senior White House correspondent; Jim Sciutto chief national security correspondent; Maria Cardona, CNN political commentator and Democratic strategist; Reihan Salam, CNN political commentator and contributing editor to "The National Review"; and Maj. Gen. Spider Marks, CNN military analyst; also with me Josh Rogan, CNN political analyst and senior correspondent for "The Daily Beast.

Jim Sciutto, I want to start with you because it certainly sounds as if there will be boots on the ground at some point.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Or at least the chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey will recommend them. I think these were two pretty remarkable statements from General Dempsey. One as you note, that he says he will recommend to the President U.S. troops in what he called a close combat advisory role. He even went into specifics as to what kind of mission they might be used for.

He mentioned the Mosul Dam. He said if Iraqi forces were attempting to retake the Mosul Dam, a key piece of infrastructure there, used in key for the whole country that he might put those advisors not just in rear positions where they are now, they're in command-and-control centers, sharing intelligence, directing, et cetera, but into a close combat support role where they're up in front, you know, in danger in attacks on ISIS.

This would seem to contradict the vow that the President has made of no combat troops or at least that the administration is splitting hairs pretty finely here as to what constitutes a combat role.

Also as you mentioned, in effect redefining the mission to say that destroy in Iraq, disrupt in Syria, the administration the President to this point has said that their goal is to disrupt and destroy. Now specifying that well, in Iraq it's going to destroy it but perhaps acknowledging that in Syria the idea of destroying ISIS is a much longer game, much less easy to accomplish. That's very interesting.

And again, for an administration who on this war so far has had some trouble specifying exactly what the end game is, exactly even what to call it. Is it a war, is it a counterterror mission? Again, you have some mincing of words, some splitting of hairs here that will raise real questions not only for the lawmakers today but also Americans watching this back home.

COSTELLO: So going back to the possibility of boots on the ground, Jim Acosta, it didn't take long for the administration to speak out about this, did it?

JIM ACOSTA, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right. And I think it's interesting to point out what General Dempsey said. He talked about advisors accompanying Iraqi forces. I'm not sure if that exactly means that they will be engaged in combat although it does put them potentially in harm's way if they're fired upon. I suppose at that point they could be in combat. They might be in a combat position.

But I want to point out what a senior administration official e-mailed to me in response to Dempsey's comments because we wanted to go and ask them what their take on this was and this person wrote back to me quote/unquote, "The President's speech still stands and no U.S. troops engaging in combat."

And so while it appeared that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs was maybe providing a little bit of wiggle room there for future use in the event they have to come back and recommend that these advisors start going in with Iraqi forces, more on the front lines than where they are right now, where they're kind of helping call out air strikes and that sort of thing, the White House is essentially saying, or the administration is essentially saying no, the President's speech still stands. The President has said time and again that there will be no combat boots on the ground engaged in combat against ISIS.

And I asked White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest about this yesterday. Because as you know over the weekend, Carol, Lindsey Graham was calling this into question as to whether or not it was a good idea to limit that element of the strategy and Josh Earnest said very clearly, very definitively that the President still believes that no combat troops will be used in any kind of capacity when it comes to taking on ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

So they seem to be making it very, very clear although General Dempsey's comments did sort of muddy the waters a little bit there.

COSTELLO: It did muddy the waters. So let's go to General Spider Marks. You heard General Dempsey. You know, just give it to us straight. What exactly did he say and what does it mean?

MAJ. GEN. JAMES "SPIDER" MARKS, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Carol, polemics in politics are an invitation to struggle and we parse words, but words are very important in combat. What Marty Dempsey said is -- excuse me -- in the fight against ISIS in Iraq, we have U.S. soldiers that are on the ground right now providing support. Those lines and those battle engagements shift as a matter of routine. Somebody who's in a support role today could be in a combat role two minutes from now.

And that's what Marty Dempsey is describing and he very, very precisely laid out that there may be an ends and a means mismatch. If there's a gap between what we want to try to achieve and what's available he'll go back to the President and say, "Look, we need more. We need to alter how we describe this thing right now." So that's what Marty was laying out for everyone.

COSTELLO: So Reihan, why doesn't the President just say that? Was he wrong to lay out this clear line and say no troops on the ground? Definitely none?

REIHAN SALAM, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: The President's political career was built on his initial opposition to the war in Iraq. He has continued to be very reluctant to use force. He has used it on occasion but every time he has used it he's done so, frankly, after a lot of hesitation. So I think that that's a core part of his political identity. It is his core as a person and I think it's entirely natural that he would continue to express that.

Now, do I think there's a problem here in terms of that mismatch between ends and means? I think there absolutely is one. And that's something he's going to have to struggle with in the months to come. Because I think that, you know, we're going in, we're putting a toe in. But the trouble is that if you want to achieve these objectives, it's quite possible that he will have to be more forceful.

COSTELLO: All right. I have to take a break. We'll be back with much more in the NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSTELLO: All right. We'll say good-bye as I bring you back to the Senate Arms Services Committee hearing, testifying are General Martin Dempsey -- you see him on the screen right there; also Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. Asking questions now, a member of the Arms Services Committee Senator Claire McCaskill, a Democrat from Missouri. Let's listen.

SEN. CLAIRE MCCASKILL, (D) MISSOURI: I guess the point I'm trying to make is it's a much different situation now in terms of getting Maliki to step down.

Iran was very concerned about ISIL taking over Iraq and what that meant, and clearly, there was pressure being exerted for Maliki to step down by Iran.

So us getting -- I think for us to take credit for getting Maliki to step down is unrealistic in light of what the geopolitical forces were in their neck of the woods at that point in time.

HAGEL: I -- I was -- I was here on this episode, and I can tell you that it wasn't the United States that pushed Maliki out; it was his own people, Iran being part of that.

So it wasn't the United States dictating that Maliki stay or not stay. Let's not forget that Iraq is a sovereign nation. It has elections. We may not like the outcomes, but it is a sovereign country. That was the entire point when General -- when President Bush signed the December 2008 agreement to leave Iraq. It was a -- it was a sovereign nation.

So the United States didn't force or push through some new system of influence, Maliki out; it was -- it was the people that made that decision.

MCCASKILL: I want to touch on the issue of the Shia militia.

As we looked at the surge, one of our successes in the surge was certainly our ability to bring over moderate Sunnis, and that was noted at the time and talked about a great deal, about our ability to finally get the cooperation of a lot of moderate Sunnis. Clearly, the moderate Sunnis have thrown in with ISIL because of the problems, political problems that they were confronted with in terms of exclusion from the Iraqi government. So, the clerics put out the call to repel ISIL to Shia militias, and they have been partially responsible for the success that have occurred on the ground.