Return to Transcripts main page
THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER
New Details on Failed Hostage Rescue Attempt; Hagel: ISIS Beyond Anything We Have Seen; New Details on Failed Hostage Crisis; Witness Says Brown Didn't Run Toward Officer
Aired August 21, 2014 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
QUESTION: Sir, can you address the charges of mission creep of Iraq going beyond helping humanitarian, beyond protecting Americans to directly going after ISIL whether through the Iraqis or not? Does the Pentagon believe it has the authority, have you talked to the general council, what you're doing now or do you need any kind of additional or different type of authorities going forward for what you would like to be able to do?
CHUCK HAGEL, U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: Well, to start with, the president's been very clear on mission creep.
And he's made it very clear that he will not allow that. This is why he's been very clear on what our mission is. We comply with the War Powers Act and inform Congress on how many people we have.
Of course we consult with our counsel all of the time on, do we have the domestic authority, do we have the international authority on all actions, as we do on everything we do? But, again, I refer you back to the president's comments on mission creep. This is not about mission creep.
Tony (ph)?
QUESTION: I want to ask you to prepare to talk directly to the American public. Is the American -- should the American public be steeled for another long, hard slog against ISIS?
Mr. Secretary, in July, you painted them as an imminent threat. Not even George Bush when he was hyping the road to the war in Iraq called Saddam Hussein an imminent threat. He called it grave and gathering.
General Dempsey, you talked about defeating ISIL over time. Should the public start getting prepared for another hard, long slog, like Secretary Rumsfeld talked about fighting al Qaeda, in the fight to eliminate ISIL?
HAGEL: As to the comment about an imminent threat, I think evidence is pretty clear when we look at what they did to Mr. Foley, what they threaten to do to all Americans and Europeans, what they are doing now, the -- I don't know any other way to describe it other than barbaric.
They have no standard of decency, of responsible human behavior. And I think the record is pretty clear on that. So, yes, they are an imminent threat to every interest we have, whether it's in Iraq or anywhere else.
GEN. MARTIN DEMPSEY, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF CHAIRMAN: You have heard me speak I think about the fact that we have gone from a narrow focus on al Qaeda to the recognition that, in the aftermath of the Arab spring and these disenfranchised populations that I have described, the lack of governance and sanctuary, fail states, declining nationalism, you have heard me talk about all that, that we actually have groups that now kind of are loosely connected, in some cases affiliated, that run from Afghanistan across the Arabian Peninsula into Yemen to the Horn of Africa and into North and West Africa.
So, in general, the conflict against those groups, most of which are local, some of which are regional, and some of which are global in nature, that's going to be a very long contest. It's ideological. It's not political. It's religious in many cases.
So, yes, it's going to be a very long contest. But when you're asking me if the American people should steel themselves for this long conflict, there will be required participation of the United States of America, in particular in a leadership role, to build coalitions to provide the unique capabilities that we provide, but not necessarily all the capabilities, to work through this thing using three different military tools.
One is direct action. There will be cases where we are personally threatened, U.S. persons and facilities are threatened, that we will use direct action. If told to use direct action for other purposes, we will be prepared to do so. Haven't been asked.
The second one is building partner capacity. And that's really where this has to reside. We have got to have them take ownership of this, because, frankly, if we own it, they're not going to be that interested in it. And then the last one, of course, is enabling, which is to say enabling our partners, which is what you see us doing somewhat now in Iraq with both the Iraqi security forces and the Peshmerga.
And I think you will see that enabling function used as well.
QUESTION: You know, you were talking about this threat and a war- weary America. And I think most Americans are asking, well, what is the ISIL threat to us here at home?
Could either of you describe the terrorist threat that ISIL represents to Americans? And should Americans, again to follow up, should they be prepared for a perpetual war on terror?
HAGEL: Well, I will take the first run at it, and Marty can respond as well.
Jim, what happened in this country on 9/11, 2001, when you asked the question about should Americans see this as any kind of a threat, imminent threat, or what's the issue, this is in Iraq, I doubt if there were many people that would have thought there was much of a threat the day before 9/11.
Now, that happened a few years ago. This country is far better prepared today in every way for this. But terrorism is not new to the world. The sophistication of terrorism and ideology that the general was talking about married now with resources now presents a whole new dynamic and a new paradigm of threats to this country.
The sophistication, technology, money, resources, all of that is different. And we can't ask the question of ourselves as leaders who have responsibility for the security of this country, saying, well, is it that big a deal? I mean, they're far away. We don't have the luxury.
Every day, the intelligence community of this country and the leaders regardless of who the administration is or who the secretary of defense is or who the chairman is, deals with this every day that we don't want to face that again ever, 9/11 or any part of it.
So we have to look at this, Jim, from the reality of what's out there, but also what could be out there and what could be coming. And is this a long-term threat? Sure it's a long-term threat.
QUESTION: Is it the calculation, though, that ISIL presents a 9/11- level threat to the United States?
HAGEL: Jim, ISIL is as sophisticated and well-funded as any group that we have seen. They're beyond just a terrorist group.
They marry ideology, a sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess. They are tremendously well-funded. Oh, this is beyond anything that we have seen. So we must prepare for everything.
And the only way you do that is, you take a cold, steely, hard look at it and get ready.
DEMPSEY: Well, the immediacy -- the immediacy is in the number of Europeans and other nationalities who have come to the region to become part of that ideology.
And those folks can go home at some point. It's why I have conversations with my European colleagues about their southern flank of NATO, which I think is actually more threatened in the near term than we are. Nevertheless, because of open borders and immigration issues, it's an immediate threat, that is to say, the fighters who may leave the current fight and migrate home.
Longer term, it's about ISIL's vision, which includes -- I actually call ISIL -- here we go, right? ISIS -- I-S-I-S -- because it's easier for me to remember that their long-term vision is the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham.
And al-Sham includes Lebanon, the current state of Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, and Kuwait. If they were to achieve that vision, it would fundamentally alter the face of the Middle East and create a security environment that would certainly threaten us in many ways.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: I know the president and you all talk about, right now, it's Iraq's responsibility to take control of their own country.
DEMPSEY: Right.
QUESTION: But isn't the U.S. already at war with ISIS?
DEMPSEY: Are you looking at me?
(LAUGHTER)
HAGEL: You're the general.
DEMPSEY: Do I look like a guy that would answer that question in front of -- the declaration of war is a policy decision, not a military decision.
QUESTION: Is there any estimate on how much these operations in Iraq have cost so far? And considering you said ISIS proposes a long-term threat, you're organizing a long-term strategy, might you need to reshape your 2015 budget to accommodate for that?
HAGEL: Maybe.
Well, depending -- first of all, go back to the Oko (ph) reference that I mentioned, that we have already asked the Congress in a separate fund, a counterterrorism fund, for $5 billion, half-a-billion of that specifically for the moderate Syrian opposition.
So, yes, you're constantly shaping a budget to assure that resources match the mission, and the mission and the resources match the threat. And it isn't -- it isn't a process that is void of the dynamics of a changing, shifting world, and requiring resources as you plug those resources in to your strategy to assure that you can carry out that strategy.
So, yes, you're shifting all the time on what you think is going to be required. I mean, we have had to move assets over the last couple of months, obviously, to accomplish what we have accomplished in Iraq.
That costs money. That takes certain monies out of certain funds. So it's a constant, fluid process, as you plan for these.
General, do you want to say anything?
DEMPSEY: Yes.
I mean, you know, this -- the adaptations we have made to our global posture and in particular our regional posture, in response to the tasks we have been given, has been really remarkable. It reminds me that never to miss the opportunity to thank those who serve in uniform for their incredible agility and courage in dealing with whatever issues confront them.
And, as you know, there's a lot of -- there's a lot of issues confronting us globally right now. And we're answering the call. And we will continue to do so. But we -- there may be a point where -- I think we're fine for fiscal year '14, and we will have to continue to gather the data and see what it does to us in '15.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK, thanks, everybody. Appreciate it. Thank you very much. Thanks very much.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to THE LEAD. I'm Jake Tapper.
You were of course just listening to the secretary of defense, Chuck Hagel, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, on the brutal murder of American James Foley by the terrorists of ISIS in Iraq.
I want to go straight to the White House correspondent Michelle Kosinski right now. She joins us from Martha's Vineyard, where President Obama is currently vacationing.
Michelle, a lot of questions remain about this failed mission to try to rescue Foley. What are you learning?
MICHELLE KOSINSKI, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Right. That's true.
But, then again, a lot of details have come out, a lot more detail than the Obama administration says they wanted to get out there. So there were some pointed questions today from CNN's Barbara Starr. Why did the Defense Department officially agree to release some of these details once they knew that reporters got them, that they had leaked out, and was that reason enough to allow those details to be officialized in the media?
Wasn't that putting it any future possible attempts at risk? And the response was as long, as the sources and methods weren't revealed, they thought it was OK. I also thought it was interesting that they called this a couple of times a flawless operation, that there was planning and preparation and rehearsal that went into it, but it turned out the hostages weren't there.
Now, when they were asked, do you think that the hostages were indeed there at one time, they said yes, Jake.
TAPPER: And, Michelle, President Obama has been -- there have been a lot of warnings coming from Congress, coming from the intelligence community.
Now we hear some dire warnings from his own cabinet, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel saying that the threat from ISIS because of their resources, their funding, is like nothing we have ever seen before, in his words.
Are people in the White House, people in the administration urging President Obama to do more than the current bombing campaign and other missions that are going on?
KOSINSKI: Yes, I mean, the answer is very complicated. But we got a pretty extensive one today. In fact, we're learning a
lot more detail not only today about this extraordinary rescue attempt, although one that was ultimately unsuccessful, but also, as you mentioned, what happens next.
I mean, one senior administration official is telling us that it is now not outside the realm of possibility that there will be additional rescue attempts in the future. And they say they now know the number of hostages they believe they're looking as the here in ISIS hands and that at least one other hostage in addition to "TIME" reporter Steven Sotloff is thought to be American.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KOSINSKI (voice-over): The same weekend Americans were celebrating the Fourth of July, President Obama authorized a high-risk hostage rescue attempt in Northern Syria.
Dozens of United States special forces in darkness flew in, in radar- evading helicopters, approached an abandoned oil refinery near the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa, and what they found immediately was heavy fire by the terrorists. One American commando was wounded, several ISIS fighters killed.
The U.S. forces were backed up by drones and fighter jets during the two-hour-long effort. But even with the intelligence they had previously gathered, what they did not find in the end were the hostages, James Foley, Steven Sotloff, and a group of others.
Today, a senior administration official tells us the intelligence they have been able to gather and they say are still gathering is difficult at best and often conflicting.
MARIE HARF, STATE DEPARTMENT DEPUTY SPOKESWOMAN: The intelligence picture is a very difficult one. And as we all know and having come from that world, you can develop an intelligence picture and the president felt it was sufficient enough to act on particularly given the danger we believe the hostages are in. And sometimes, unfortunately, these things happen.
KOSINSKI: A senior official insists the White House did not want details of the operation to get out because ISIS at the time was not even sure that the commandos knew they were fighting Americans and that knowing that now could change their reactions and the risk of the U.S. losing the intelligence path it's been following is real.
So far, they say it's too soon to tell how ISIS is reacting to the latest events, including President's Obama statement yesterday.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The United States of America will continue to do what we must do to protect our people. We will be vigilant and we will be relentless.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KOSINSKI: So, did the release of all these details make it more difficult to move forward in the future, at any future attempts to try to bring these hostages home? The answer is it's too early to tell. And the senior administration official we talked to at length says they were looking at a very, very difficult intelligence environment. What they're doing now is looking for any changes in the streams that they say they still have access to, any changes in the way ISIS is communicating.
And they are, yes, they say, still looking at possibilities to get to these hostages. What we can look at going forward are more air strikes. This official said if they are reduced, that means things are going well. If things start to make a turn for the worst, there will be an additional number of airstrikes. We'll see that pick up.
And we asked the question, with U.S. backup, I mean, the way the U.S. is framing this is they want the Iraqis and Kurds could take the fight to ISIS itself. Is there any way this could fail with U.S. backup? They say that is very unlikely -- Jake.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: Michele Kosinski, thanks so much.
Let's go to Barbara Starr. She is at the Pentagon where she just stepped out of that briefing with Secretary Hagel and General Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chief of staff.
Barbara, what struck you most from that briefing?
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: You know, Jake, it was actually fairly extraordinary. The secretary of defense for the first time I think really sounding an alarm and very alarming words about ISIS. The Secretary Hagel saying, I want to quote, "This is beyond anything we have seen. We need to take a cold hard look and get ready." Because he was asked by reporters, does ISIS match the kind of threat to the United States that we saw here on 9/11? So, he's saying that it is beyond anything we have seen.
The big question that they were asked was, so, OK, what's the U.S. strategy now, the U.S. military strategy to deal with ISIS on both sides of the border in Iraq and inside Syria? These airstrikes in Iraq as Michelle said, Secretary Hagel, the General Dempsey, saying they feel so far they've succeed in stalling ISIS a bit where they are inside Iraq.
But you know, don't count on that. Still, there are tens and tens of thousands of Iraqis on the run from ISIS. And we are seeing ISIS very well-funded, very brutal.
So, the big question, of course, is: can you defeat ISIS without doing airstrikes inside Syria on the Syrian side of the border? Obviously a question both of them side stepped just a bit. They say there will need to be an effort to defeat ISIS but it's going to not be the United States alone. There's going to have to be a coalition in the Middle East. That too may be a bit of wishful thinking that there will be one.
On the hostage rescue, both of them declined to call it a failed rescue attempt. They say the mission went off flawlessly though they did not get any of the hostages and they said and they acknowledge that they will revealed this highly classified mission because the news media, they said, was about to write about it. So, they decided with the White House, that it was fine to reveal the hostage rescue mission, not reveal any tactics or procedures that the commandos engaged in but to acknowledge it had happened. That too fairly unprecedented -- Jake.
TAPPER: Barbara, I wonder if the generals in the building in which you work are concerned at all by what seems to many to be two conflicting messages coming from the administration. You have the secretary of defense saying that ISIS is like a threat we've never seen before. Presumably that includes the threat from al Qaeda. And yet, we also have President Obama pledging time and time again no boots on the ground.
Do people in the Pentagon think that you can't address this threat like we've never seen before unless we have all options open?
STARR: Well, I mean, I think that's an extremely fair point. Because you know, it's like a threat we've never seen before but as Secretary Hagel went on to say, there will be no mission creep. You know, that this was still be President Obama's very limited mission, airstrikes in Iraq to protect the Iraqi government, to protect Baghdad, to protect U.S. personnel. No mission creep.
The reality is that most military people will tell you defeating ISIS is going to take action. It's going to take action inside Syria -- Jake.
TAPPER: Barbara Starr at the Pentagon, thank you so much.
Coming up next, the National Guard pulling out of Ferguson, Missouri, where we are right now. But with tensions still high here, is that too soon?
Plus, he's the congressman who represents this district that I'm standing in. He says he has no faith in the Ferguson police department to lead the investigation into Michael Brown's killing. What does this congressman want to see done? I will ask him coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TAPPER: Welcome back to THE LEAD. I'm Jake Tapper. And we are, as we have live from Ferguson, Missouri.
We just heard from the defense secretary and the nation's top general about the failed rescue attempt of an American who was beheaded by ISIS and the extraordinary threat that this terrorist group ISIS poses.
Turning now, of course, to another story big in the news. Ferguson, the fallout in the investigation and the still very tense situation following the shooting of an unarmed African-American, 18-year-old Michael Brown, of course. Now, here in Ferguson, the Missouri governor has ordered the national
guard to leave the city after a relatively quiet couple nights on the streets. So many more facts about this case coming to light in just the past few hours, close to two weeks after Michael Brown was shot. So many more will be revealed, of course, with the federal investigation under way and that grand jury hearing evidence. There is no telling when a new bit of information could turn what is now a tense calm into this again. Another night clouded in smoke and tear gas.
Today, there's a new eyewitness account of the shooting, Michael Brady tells Anderson Cooper that he heard two rounds of shots and that he did not see Brown run back at the officer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Did you see him running toward the officer in any way?
MICHAEL BRADY, EYEWITNESS TO MICHAEL BROWN SHOOTING: No, no, not after when he was running away, no, not at all. Like I said, by the time I come outside, I'm thinking he's now hit after I seen the officer shooting at him, while he was running away. So, I'm thinking he's hit because now he's turned around. Now like this like he was going down. It didn't even look like that he was giving up. It just looked like you know, I'm here. I'm going to go down now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: So, now, no fewer than four witnesses have come forward to CNN, each from distinct vantage points with some differing points of what happened. But we still do not know what happened other than a confrontation of some sort, followed by at least six gunshots, according to a private autopsy.
Meanwhile up close video has surfaced of another police shooting nearby in St. Louis. Police say an African-American man,' mentally disturbed one was behaving erratically waving a knife. Does the video match with that story?
