>> good morning, everybody. time to givee some you a quick update about the situation in iraq. meetingy, i convened a with my national security discuss the situation there and this morning i received an update from my team. days we'vest several seen significant gains made by organizationrist that operates in both iraq and in syria. a terroristof offensive, iraqi security forces have proven unable to defend a which hascities allowed the terrorists to overrun part of iraq's territory danger to iraqa and its people, and, given the of these terrorists, it could pose a threat eventually to american interests, as well. is not brand new. over the last year, we have been up our security assistance to the iraqi government with increased equipping and intelligence. now, iraq needs additional momentum ofreak the extremist groups and bolster the capabilities of iraqi security forces. will not be sending u.s. troops back into combat in iraq but i have asked my national security team to prepare a range helpher options that could support iraq security forces and i'll be reviewing those options the days ahead. i do want to be clear, though, this is not solely or even primarily a military challenge. over the past decade, american have made extraordinary sacrifices to give iraqis an ownrtunity to claim their future. leadersately, iraqi have been unable to overcome, too often, the mistrust and differences that has and been simmering there that's created vulnerabilities within the iraqi government as well as their security forces so we may take to provide assistance to iraqi be joinedorces has to by a serious and sincere effort asideq's leaders to set sectarian differences, to accountstability and for the legitimate interests of iraq's communities and continue to build the capacity of an effective security force. we can't do it for them. and in the absence of this type of political effort, short-term military action, including any provide,e we might won't succeed so this should be a wake-up call. demonstrate have to a willingness to make hard decisions and compromises on the iraqi people in order to bring the country together. in that effort, they will have support of the united states and our friends and our allies. somes neighbors also have responsibilities to support this process. nobody has an interest in seeing gain a foothold and nobody will benefit from seeing iraq descend into chaos so the united states will do our part but understand that ultimately it's up to the iraqis as a sovereign nation to problems.r indeed, across region, we have efforts to help build more capable counterterrorism forces so that like isil can't establish safe haven and we'll continue supportrt through the of our moderate opposition in anda, our support for iraq its security forces and our partnership with other countries across the region. pursuelso going to intensive diplomacy throughout and period both inside iraq across the region because there's never going to be stability in iraq and the region unless there are political processes that allow differencess solve peacefully without resorting to relying on the military. be remainiority will being vigilant to any threats to our personnel serving overseas. will consult closely with congress as we make about theions appropriate action and will keep the american people fully make decisions about the way forward. i'll take a question. >> recent u.s. history there, you reluctant to get involved with iraq? should look at the situation carefully. we have an interest in making a group like isil, which is a vicious organization and has been able to take advantage of the chaos in syria, a broaderdon't get foothold. i think there are dangerous of sectarian fighting if, for example, the terrorist organizations try to overrun sacred shia sites which could trigger shia-sunni conflicts that could be very hard to stamp out so we have enormous interests there and obviously the americand people and the american taxpayers made huge investments order to give in iraqis the opportunity to chart course, a better destiny. but ultimately they're going to to seize it. as i said before, we are not going to be able to do it for them and given the very difficult history that we've in iraq, i think that any objective observer would ofognize that in the absence accommodation among the various factions inside of iraq, various military actions by the united states, by any outside nation, are not going to solve those problems over the long term and deliver the stability that we need. anybody else? mr. president, is the syrian civil war spilling over the iraq border? been happening's for some time. isil has been able to gain a foothold in syria. that's part of the reason why we have been so concerned about it. that's part of the reason why we supporting the syrian opposition there but it's a problem.ng in iraq, the iraqi government, toch was initially resistant some of our offers of help, has recognized now to that cooperation with us on some be useful.sues can obviously that's not the case in assad hase president no interest in seeing us and where some of the governments that are supporting aside have been able block, for example, u.n. efforts even at humanitarian aid is a regional problem and it is going to be a long-term problem. have to we're going to do is combine selective actions by our military to make sure we're going after terrorists who could harm our eventuallyverseas or hit the homeland. we're going to have to combine is a verywhat challenging international effort to rebuild countries and communities that have been shattered by sectarian war. task.at's not an easy willing to doey -- >> we're in contact with them now. we'll have a better sense by the weekend after those consultations and we will be sense from them of how they might support an to bring -- bring about unitynd of political inside of iraq that bolsters security forces. poured ad states has lot of money into these iraqi devoted aorces and we lot of training to iraqi security forces. the fact that they are not to stand and fight and againstheir posts admittedly hardened terrorists who areterrorists overwhelming in numbers, problems that there's a with morale, there's a problem in terms of commitment, and ultimately that's rooted in the political problems that have veryed the country for a long time. last question. last one. >> thank you. can you talk a little bit about u.s. concern of the disruption -- potential disruption of oil supplies? far, at least, we have not major disruptions in oil supplies. obviously, if, in fact, isil was able to obtain control over significant, refineries, that could be a source of concern. might expect, world oil markets react to any kind of instability in the middle east. one of our goals should be to in cooping -- cooperation with other countries only are wen, not creating a backstop in terms of what's happening inside of iraq, but if there do end up being thatptions inside of iraq, some of the other producers in the gulf be able to pick up the slack so that will be part of consultations taking place during the course of this week. to give people a sense of timing here, although events on the ground in iraq have been quickly, oury ability to plan, whether it's work with then or iraqi government on some of these political issues, is going so peopleveral days should not anticipate that this is something that is going to happen overnight. we want to make sure that we eyes on the situation there. we want to make sure that we've intelligencethe it's necessary so that if, in fact, i do direct and order any actions there that they're targeted, they're precise and they're going to have an effect as i indicated before and i want to make sure everybody understands this message, the is not simply going to involve itself in a absence action in the of a political plan by the iraqis that gives us some assurance that they're prepared to work together. we're not going to allow backlves to be dragged into a situation in which, while we're keeping a lid on things and after enormous sacrifices by us, as soon as we're not there, suddenly people acting in ways that are not conducive to the long-term and prosperity of the country. thank you very much, everybody. >> some republican reaction now. says speaker john boehner it's long pastime for the president to lay out a plan to andto reverse the spread momentum of terrorism in iraq and a region that's critical to interests.al the house foreign affairs committee chair says this is a chaos.in the president and his team need to be acting urgently, not reviewing options in the days ahead and buck mckeon of california says the white house alla history of considering options while choosing none. there are no quick-fix solutions to this crisis and i will not support a one-shot strike that the cameras and has no enduring effect. defense didn't press contact admiral john kirby says the iraqis disappointed that security forces were unable to the islamicd defeat state of iraq and syria. he stressed that the pentagon continues to monitor the andlating violence in iraq is preparing options for the president to consider. 40 minutes.t good afternoon, everybody. let me start with a brief update on iraq. secretary hagel continues to monitor the situation there as do defense and military leaders here at the pentagon. last 38 hours, the secretary has met a number of times with senior military leaders to discuss events on the ground and prepare options for the president's consideration. i won't detail those options but a wideell you they cover range of military capabilities and will be designed, the president says, to help break momentum of isil's progress and bolster iraqi security any decisionearly to employ these options rests solely with the commander-in-chief. think it's important to remember that for several months now we have been be working in close coordination with the state department to augment the capabilities of iraqi security forces. on increasingbeen their capacity to defend themselves and their people and taking onponsible for the threats over the long term. in march, we delivered 100 hellfire missiles on an expedited time table bringing some 300.to that's in addition to millions of rounds of small arms fire, ammunition, helicopter fired rockets. late last year we delivered additional armed scout helicopters to the iraqi armed forces and a few weeks ago we congress of an additional billion dollars in sales. military secretary believes it is imperative that iraq and its neighbors have strong security meet evolving threats and the violence spilling over from syria's borders. fully committed to that effort but in keeping with that effort we continue to provide counterterrorism support. support has included i.s.r. capabilities and we have supportied this i.s.r. in recent days at the request of the iraqi government. think it's important to remember that we have some 35,000 u.s. military personnel in the middle east region. our forces there work closely each and every day with our against to defend external aggression and terrorist networks that threaten its allies. before i take your questions, i want to say a few words about hagel's meeting this morning with prime minister of australia, tony abbott. discussed the forced posture agreement that he and the president announced 25-year agreement that will provide an enduring framework for the initiatives governments embarked in november 2011, including rotational presence of marine and air force assets as well as partnerships on space and cyber. oure deeply grateful for partnership with the australian defense force. secretary hagel looks forward to discussing further defense cooperation at the annual states military consultations later in year in australia. questions.i'll take >> can you provide maybe a detail, do you gotten intobush has the gulf, is heading for the gulf at this point or generally you say when he's expected and can you give any broad assessment of the or capabilities, that the u.s. believes they may have? not >> on your first question, i withnothing to announce respect to force movements and area ofral command responsibility, the aircraft bush and her strike group remain in the region and that for any tasking general austin cares to give them but as we speak right now, there's no aircraft carriers into the persian gulf. on your other question, i did use that verb -- on your other i mean, we have for watching events in iraq isis,ime and watching isil's movements and capabilities. resourcedhey're well and what we're seeing is a not unsophisticated degree of cooperation and organization on their part and of course momentum and the president speck spoke to that earlier today about the need in the near term to help iraq break that momentum. as for their capability, these are -- this is an armed militant extremist group and we do know as iraqi secures forces or left andback vacated areas and bases, we have believe that isil have benefited from that with respect equipment anded systems but we don't have a really perfect sense on exactly or -- and their capabilities of using what they've got but we've seen the video. you see that they're driving some of these vehicles, they're in possession of some of this stuff but i'd be loathe to tell solid sense what have they've got. >> numbers? >> numbers? this isn't -- this isn't an army, like a nation army. so i think any estimate of numbers would be imperfect but i clearly -- i think it's in the thousands. we've said for quite some time that they gainnue to -- they substance and reinforcements from foreign fighters from syria, as well, but i think if you were to characterize it in the thousands, i think that's accurate but again -- [inaudible question] i just would say stay with thousands. you a hesitant to give hard nob this. hang on just a second. answer.inish the it's not the kind of force that put down numerically and to count. organized nation state army. left it atk if you thousands, you'd be fine. justin? >> what plan could you draw up? realistically are you looking to do if you're not clear on what they have, where what they're commanding -- >> justin, what i said was, we indicationa perfect of the captured equipment that they have. but we have been be watching, as said at the outset of my answer, we certainly have been watching their growth and activities and their inside iraq. it's not that we haven't been mindful of the threat that they pose or what they're capable of doing. and i'm just simply not going to detail options that -- that secretary hagel and the leadership here in the pentagon are proposing. >> but you're confident that you options to take them out if you were told to do so? >> our job is to provide the commander-in-chief options. we are doing that. we have been in so many other places in the world, we're that -- that we will be able to provide the commander-in-chief options to be flexible as he should choose to want to be. joe? >> given the lack of intelligence that the united intes has on the ground iraq, i don't know if you agree with this -- are you confident that these options that the pentagon leaders are working on president canthe give the iraqi government the theytunity to retake what have lost, like the city of mosul and other cities? joe, your question gets to toective and i'm just going point back to what the commander-in-chief just said a ago, that there's a near-term objective here to help iraq break this momentum and again, we're going to provide to meetthat -- that try the commander-in-chief's intent in that regard and i'm just simply not going to go into much greater detail than that but i to also's important make it clear that over the long it onthis is, as i said tuesday, this is -- this is -- is the sovereign state of iraq. they have security forces. this is ultimately a threat and a challenge that the government and iraqi security force have got to be able to rise to meet. context, are you aware that the iranian have sentary guards special forces inside iraq and if they did so, what's the that?on reaction on >> i've seen the press reporting on that, joe, but i have nothing confirm that there are iranian special forces inside going to getnot into hypotheticals. the only thing i would say and before is that we encourage all of iraq's neighbors, including iran, to a constructive role in -- you know, in iraq, clearly, and given the challenges they're facing but also in the region. missy. >> the president said that it consideration to send u.s. troops back into combat in iraq. does that imply that it would be or is it under consideration or would it be under consideration to send american soldiers or d.o.d. civilians to do other things in iraq like advising support, either under oncr. authority or u.s. authority? >> we already have in iraq and have since 2011 a small again, i'm not going to get into hypotheticals about options may or may not be sent over for the president to consider. i think he was pretty clear about -- today, what he didn't want to do and, you know, our to provide him options to consider and we're doing that but i'm not going to speculate about what they are, barb. you mentioned at the beginning that you've increased ther. in recent days at request of the iraqi government. can you add to that, in recent days, so in response to this crisis? when did they request? can you tell us any more about what you're doing and to follow up on justin's question, if you don't -- if the pentagon can't even confirm that there are on the ground,s what is the quality of the intelligence? how can you give the president realistic options if there's so many holes in the intelligence? were holes say there in intelligence, barb. so let's go back and unpack this a little bit. have at the request of the iraqi government, we have for providingnow been some i.s.r. support. as i said, it's not like we haven't seen isis's development country.e in recent days, this week, if you need to put a time on it, this week we got additional the iraqirom government for additional, more andnsified i.s.r. support we're providing that. [inaudible question] no, i cannot. don't talk about the methods through which we conduct i.s.r. missing and we talk abouton't intelligence matters publicly forget theet's not larger point which is we have been sharing information with the iraqi government and the iraqi security forces since we left the country in large to what we'vewn had there since 2011 so this information sharing arrangement is not new. intensified this week, in conjunction with the activities. and the lack of precise on-the-ground intelligence, if you can't confirm -- if this can't confirm -- even confirm that there are iranian forces in iraq, how can you incredibly give the president viable options when you don't have a full intelligence picture? >> intelligence is never perfect. it's not a perfect science. it never has been, it never will be. capability,rtant it's one that we continue to develop with the iraqi security said tond i'm -- as i justin's question -- i'm comfortable and confident and so is the secretary that the options that the military will provide the president will be robust enough for the commander-in-chief to make the decisions he needs to make. don't you think it's important to know if there are iranians there? >> barb. we're working on this as hard and as fast as we can with our in iraq. said, i don't have confirm iranian special forces inside iraq but just also been clear, not this week, but we have been consistently clear that iran needs to be a responsible and we in the region continue be to urge them to do that. yeah? you said you want iran to be responsible and prior to this they should play a constructive role. can you first outline what a role could be -- >> they can stop supporting extremist networks, right? one thing. involvement by iran be constructive or not in that situation now? going to writet iraniann plan for the government to play in the region. we have been clear about what our expectations are for iran and i think i certainly have clear here today that we want all of iraq's partners to theya constructive role as face this very real challenge sovereignnd iran are states. the disagree to -- degree to which they talk to one another and make decisions, that is between the leaders of those two but this is aes very real threat inside iraq. it's certainly a threat in the again, i think this is a time for everybody to make sober, deliberate, measured decisions. >> based on your assessment of iraq, do you in envision any scenario where the u.s. can provide some kind of to the iraqi government without getting in a militaryved way to break this momentum you've been talking about? what -- that's what -- that's why the president has and he's options reviewing options. but again, i'd remind you, it's not like -- the premise of the question is that we just walked from iraq, and we didn't. 2011, as been, since small number of u.s. military epibasel working in the embassy to help continue to and assist iraqi security forces but i also think it's people to remember that the iraqi security forces work for the government of iraq a limit to how far advice and assistance can go in three years. seen inwhat we've the -- some of what we've seen from iraqi security forces in some parts of the country speak to deeper challenges inside the iraqi government to include political differences. i'll remind you of something we in 2011, the best safeguard to a return to violence is of iraqi commitment leaders to resolve their differences through politics and i think some of what we're now with i.s.f., iraqi security force problems, stem from ongoing political insideges that remain iraq. [inaudible] >> say that again? atare these forces capable this moment to break that momentum you've been speaking about? >> i think the president made that in the near term he wants to have options available -- in the near term -- break this momentum. so to clearly have us help them near term break this momentum. we -- and i'm not going to be it, we're certainly disappointed by the performance security force units with respect to the challenges they have faced in but over thedays long term, these are threats and challenges that the iraqi government and the iraqi security forces have to meet for iraqilves and for the people. >> you've been sharing so much information with the iraqi government since 2011, all the training that's gone iraqiuilding up the force, the equipment sold to to help them perform their duties. how surprised were you or were at the at all surprised way the forces performed so poorly when push came to shove were confronted with a real threat? >> as i said before, we're disappointed in the performance of some of these units and i think it's fair to say that -- that we didn't them -- for those units to not have stood up to the threat. we didn't -- i don't think -- we certainly didn't expect that of performance. president said over the near term we're going to to help them break do momentum and then we'll that. >> do you have any concern that perhaps some of the iraqi commanders may have been feeding investigation to isil or undermining the performance of the units? not seen any information in that regard, no. admiral, as we know, the under saddami army hussein was disbanded soon after the u.s. invasion of march 2003. army was totally reconstituted and trained over the subsequent years. is the response of iraqi security forces in the last week or other areas, is that kind of a poor training thatthe the united states provided to iraqi security forces? not, no.tely >> why not? 2011, wee left iraq in forces at aecurity level of competency, particularly on counterterrorism, that we believed was appropriate to the threats that they faced. and i would remind you, not that but aably don't need to, lot of -- a lot of blood and treasure that went into giving iraqis that opportunity. a lot of young men and women home, giving them that opportunity. secretary hagel is exactlyat that what we did, but that was three ago and to some -- to a degree, the iraqi government has the proficiency of their armed forces. yes, we have a small group that's stayed in the embassy to advise and assist but it's trainingert active regimen. we got them to what we believed was an appropriate level of competency in 2011. obviously, the threat's changed, too, clearly. i said earlier, this is a sovereign country, these are forces and while we're going to tee up options for the president to consider this near-term break in momentum, ultimately over the the term, this is responsibility of iraq, iraq's government, iraq's people and their security forces. yeah? >> did u.s. have requested the government some sort of inventory or assessment of the was seized by these people? and how important this could be to prepare -- >> i'm not aware of any inventory we've asked. as i understand it, the iraqi government is investigating the the last couple of days and as i understand it, looking into the scope of captured equipment and systems that belong to the iraqi but i wouldn't prejudge how that's going to come out. there enough intelligence aerialprovide some support? >> i don't understand the question. orders somerson support to control the advance the people, do you have to avoidtelligence massacres -- >> let's not get into hypotheticals right now. i don't think that's very helpful. how can you ensure people of thatnistan also the u.s. the -- when you withdraw troops? >> i think the premise is wrong. in avensions afghanistan are not built on an iraq model. there's no iraq model. this is a completely different situation. the president has made some our forceabout what presence will look like in afghanistan after the end of we getar, assuming that assigned bilateral security missiont and what the would look like on both sides twocomplexity over the next years. i fail to see a comparison to regard and i would remind you that we had remained open to discussing a follow-on presence in iraq assuming we sort oft the same agreement, leel -- legal protection for our troops which the iraqi government was not able to produce. >> what steps are you going to ensure the forces are strong enough. we can stand on the record of our performance over the last of to three years in terms helping to develop the afghan forces which are in the lead right now quite well. you can look at the security of the elections that just occurred. nothing changes about our commitment to that and the nato post 2014, when the combat mission ends, is all about furthering their their capability and as the president made clear, we're committed to executing that. forces, training, fighting iraqi forces. three years after our mission ended in iraq. then and i'll say it again, that when we left iraq, we left with iraqi security forces that were competent to the threat that they were facing. that threat has evolved over and frankly the iraqi security forces have changed over three years. government should be able to speak to their organization, their manning, resourcing and their training and equipping of their armed forces over the last three years. to provide options to the president to see if we can't help break this momentum thehe near term but over long term this is an iraqi government challenge and threat meet and as i said, as we said back then, the best continuedis for commitment by iraqi leaders to differencesr through peaceful politics and thinkive government and i it's fair to say that that rights is far from mature now. i'm sorry, mick. president said it, you repeated in just about every one your answers, break the momentum. be regained,easily so are we talking about a long-term military commitment here? >> i'm not going to -- i think was clear -- >> what does it mean to break the momentum? from shooting today, tomorrow, next week, then we systems we're going to provide? >> i think we just need to -- we decision making process work its way through, mick. we're providing options to the president. the president, the commander-in-chief is going to make decisions based on the that he's provided and a whole all -- it's interagency national security team that are reviewing options the president's consideration. it's not all about the military. i think the president was clear near-term his objective is and we're going to provide options that help that objective. >> it sounds like the u.s. is making a commitment -- would a commitment to, in fact, iraqi government for some period of time in any one these advancements, reforms that they plan to pursue but in the meantime the enemy forces here, the militants, just aren't going to pick up and leave. >> we're committed to helping the president's objectives and i'm going to leave it at that. yeah. can you say whether -- i've seen some reports that in isis force the there's some other former insurgent groups that are adding to the momentum of this campaign. do you have any evidence at this point that the threat is multifaceted beyond this one organization? >> well, look, it's not a monolithic organization. are.mist groups rarely i don't have any particular insights into their makeup and their manning. there's a lot of foreign .ighters involved here to lida's question about the numbers, it's a fluid number and not a hierarchal organized force.state it matters less to us what i.d. card they're carrying or who they think they belong to and more about what they're doing and what we can do to help iraq's security forces term.in the near richard? >> is this now a civil war? anlook, what we have is armed militant group and network threatening the internal security of iraq and i'm not going to put bumper stickers on it. i think everybody is aware of the threat being posed to the people by these guys and again we're all -- we're committed to doing what we can in the near term. >> does the pentagon have any information you could share it with us, who is funding, who is isis?ing and do you agree with a lot of analysis here in washington, tanksainly some think saying that religious movement behindi arabia are funding isis. what could you say to that? >> i don't have a lot of insight funded andy they're supported but clearly as i said funded,utset, they are they are getting support, they have resources and i'm not in a position now to quantify or clarify where it's all coming from and again, back to richard's question. it matters -- what matters is what they're doing inside iraq and that's what our focus is on. want yeah, in the back. >> do you have confidence in the security forces' ability to hold baghdad? ministeret prime maliki speak for his forces and in and aroundty baghdad. clearly we have a very fast situation, that the whole national security team focused on and that's -- which the spirit in option, from a military perspective, that we're -- that we're proposing for the president's consideration. focus on what we need ratheright now and i'd not hypothesize about what the security forces will or will not do. wei said earlier, certainly were -- i'll just say, we were surprised and disappointed by poor performance of some iraqi security force units there up in the north. than honestbe less if i said that that performance instilled a lot of confidence. it didn't. >> sectarian divide in those areas has led to their poor performance and on baghdad, specifically, there are wericans there, so what are doing, what are you doing to protect the americans specifically at the embassy? this isn't about blaming anybody, justin. clear thate made it there's a lot of factors, i played into where the iraqi security forces are departure. after our that's interesting history but to focus on what we can do in the near term to help the this security forces meet threat. on your second question, we know many americans in have an certainly we operational embassy there in baghdad. that embassy is still operational. there's been no request by the state department for -- to move thee americans out of country and that's obviously for state to speakat to. luis? questions.wo one on this topic and another one. video thatthere was came out on social media showed very long line of prisoners that been be captured i guess by isis in tikrit. half ofrts today that those numbers, maybe 1700 of killed in a mass killing. do you have any information to support that information that killing of mass shiite soldiers who had been captured by isis? do not. >> second question. the unitedreturn to states last night, around the same time yesterday, there was cited news report that two letters that were supposedly written by bergdahl while he was undercaptivity. have any information to werey that those letters legit. >> i cannot confirm the authenticity of the letters. i mean, we're aware of the news iports about the letters but can't confirm the voracity of them. >> barbara? >> you gave up the opportunity, asked, to say that this department believes iraqi forces baghdad. you didn't -- you wouldn't answer that. the primeou'll let minister speak for that. i'd like to ask again, does the theed states military think iraqi military -- does this secretary hagel think iraqi forces can hold baghdad? didn't give up not to answer, i take every opportunity i can not to answer your questions. simply -- we -- serious question. >> i know it is, barb. it.trying to answer i'll try it, again. about his force's ability to defend baghdad is a the iraqihat he and government are best able to answer. clearly -- clearly, they are facing a significant threat and not every unit in the iraqi security forces have risen that threat. on anybodyt lost here that the threat is real, which is why the has asked thehief military leadership here in the pentagon, the secretary of defense, to provide him some to review. that's what we're focused on whatever the then commander-in-chief decides, should it include military them into assist breaking the momentum that isil has, we'll execute those and then if there's a decision and should there be, when there is, we'll speak to that at the but i'm -- they are clearly a force facing a threat and again, not all of uniformly have certain like it- let's call it is -- have met that threat capably. the u.s. military making any preparations or moving any forces in case the state request andoes embassy evacuation? and who was moving these contractors that were in northern iraq to other places? do you have any info about that? look,your first question, all regional commanders have assets at their disposal, particularly our central command andander has assets resources should evacuationing in any country which falls under his purview. plans tove standing conduct those missing should but we're noted there yet. and i would also remind you that aboute're talking noncombatant evacuations, the state department makes those decisions, and military assets are not always first tool of that so general andin has resources capabilities at his disposal should they be required. such request for that or requirement for it now. on the question about the contractors in bilad, they are contractors and my understanding is -- and i don't want to speak the company for which they work -- but my understanding is company is arranging thetheir departure from bilad air base and i would refer you to them to speak to how they're doing it. tony. >> you painted the portrait of not hiker -- hierarchal, not state military, yet a significant threat. you don't know the numbers, the numbers are fluid, but in the thousands. how does that complicate military options. it doesn't seem like they have, a center of gravity that air strikes could take out or break the momentum? how does the fact that they're fluid and non-state and in the versus the 600,000 force, how does that complicate the options? >> i think the options that are by the building said at theas i outset, a wide range of military capabilities and yes, one of the that we are tasked to provide options for would be kinetic strikes, which can be incredibly effective and wayrful when done the right to achieve objectives. i'm not going to get ahead of, though, decisions that the commander-in-chief hasn't made yet. i'm just not going to prejudge that. so, look, you're right, they're not, as i said, they're not a nation state army but clearly are interested in geographic gains, as well, and we've seen that happen. again, i think there's a whole swath of military that could be useful depending on what decisions the president wants to make. >> gaddafi had a standing army offer, sets we went piece army. this doesn't seem like a set you could apply traditional -- >> but iraqi security forces again,at is an army and whatever the thrust of whatever be to assist the iraqi security forces in meeting this threat. i think the president's been clear about his intent with that, in that regard, to help, in the near term, to help break isil and to of assist iraqi security forces as the continue to meet threat. >> planning for unilateral air strikes by the united states but in coordination with combined -- >> whatever we would do would be in coordination with the iraqi and the iraqi security forces and certainly, the request of the iraqi government but again, i don't want to get into a lot of hypotheticals or chase the rabbit hole here of exactly what options. to provide the commander-in-chief options. that's what we do, every single all over the world, that's what we're doing now. commander-in-chief has to make the decisions. that unmanned, unarmed i.s.r. or manned i.s.r.? can you say that? >> i'm just going to say that we're intensifying this week our i.s.r. support. i.s.r. support to the iraqi security forces and i'm not to qualify it any further than that. >> another crack at breaking momentum. again, what does that mean? simply preventing the militants from taking down baghdad? or does it mean reversing the gains that they have made so far? >> mick, i think it's not early stage,is before the president has even go intoe decisions, to in describing precisely what capabilities will what tactical to effect. i think, again, he was very near term, we're going to try to help the iraqi security forces break this momentum that isil has clearly built, in just days and iveral think that's what the focus of theplanners here in pentagon and what secretary hagel is focused on. we'll leave it at that. a it implies this is not short-term fix. it sounds like you're committing to a long-term solution. >> what we have been committed to in the long term, since we iraq in -- since the combat ended, is araq long-term strategic partnership with iraq and iraq security forces and iraq security forces competent and capable of defending their people, defending their territory, defending their country. clearly they're under strain and threat right now and so again clear that --was that we have an interest in termng them in the near combat this very real threat but and i'll gog term back to -- we said it in 2011, over the long term, what really needs to happen inside iraqi security forces and inside the an inclusive peaceful political process that allows for the competency and the iraqi security forces to be sustained. there's been some challenges in few years with respect to that and, again, that's problemg that -- that be, that issue, is something the iraqi government needs to solve. everybody, appreciate it. [captions performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> at a book promotion appearance at george washington university in washington, d.c., former secretary of state whatry clinton was asked the u.s. should do about the growing violence in iraq. think that it's also maliki be that presented with a set of even tons, if you are discuss seriously any kind of support for the fight jihadists, and that's a delicate and difficult our government because we certainly don't want to fight their fight because you'd be for a dysfunctional, authoritarianve, government and there's no reason that we that i know of would ever sacrifice a single that.an life for [applause] a, however, serious potential crisis with broad regional and even global consequences. we'll show all of former secretary clinton's remarks 8:30 p.m. eastern tv" on part of book show you herwe'll tomorrowing appearance live at 11:00 a.m. next, a discussion about the situation in iraq hosted by the washington institute for near east policy. discussion on u.s. border security and after that, president obama talks about >> the washington institute held a panel discussion analyzing the escalade violence in iraq. include a former u.s. ambassador, james jeffords. -- james jeffrey. >> a good afternoon. welcome to the washington institute. i am the director of the institute. thank you very much for joining us on short notice. this is an event we wish we were not convening at the institute. noticee called on short to address the issues of the day. we titled this iraq's dire situation. my view is it is an understatement. thathill might have said this is a debacle wrapped in a tragedy inside of a catastrophe. even that might be only a bit approaching the reality of the situation. facing the iraqi people and american interests. i'm very pleased that we at the washington institute have a deep bench of expertise to bring to bear on understanding the situation in iraq and more broadly today offering suggestions to address the situation between the government of iraq and the united states. the united states and its allies around the region. and the messaging from washington throughout the middle east and i'm very pleased to recognize the ambassador from iraq here today. i know you have a lot on your plate and i'm delighted you are with us today. let me introduce our paneslists. first, i am pleased to introduce jim jeffrey. jim served the united states with distinction as ambassador in baghdad. in additon to service in ankara, he was ambassador in albania. he was the deputy national security advisor. he has a lifetime of experience in american foreign policy and diplomacy. based on the original foundation of military experience that hearkened all the way back to vietnam. perhaps not a metaphor for today's events, but perhaps they are. jim will offer insight into that. speaking later in our program is aaron zelling. i think it is fair to say that there are exceedingly few people inside or outside of government who have followed the developments of what president obama now calls isil and what other experts call isis, the same radical extremist group that we are talking about. aaron, through his minute, detailed exploration of these groups, brings extraordinary value added to these groups and what is going on in iraq and syria. joining us from orly airport in paris is michael knights. he is, as this audience knows, one of the finest observers of political-military issues in iraq, has been a voice of incisive and insightful analysis on this situation going back many, many years. i am delighted that he can join us. i think because he is under some technical constraints, that we are going to begin our program with mike, then turned to jim, and then to aaron. so, mike. if we could just address that noise. mike, the floor is yours. >> thanks very much. i have certainly transmitted from worse place than this. i should be with you for the hour. i think you have a graphic that you're going to put up. [no audio] thanks very much. background noise gone. if you look at this graphic -- and i apologize. >> one second. one second. >> just tell me when. >> i don't -- go ahead. >> testing. can you hear me ok now? i will continue to speak. the map that you see in front of you gives some basic areas of control. the green area you can see is the unoccupiable kurdish areas. the large region in grey is the area that has collapsed. it may be isis in control, it may be local militants, it may be government forces. the lines on this map show a red line or an orange line, which was the forward edge of control just before the june crisis. now you see a light blue line, which is the current forward position. it demonstrates how they have moved forward along the entire disputed line. where you see the loss of control end and, you see a thin corridor from samarra, where hopefully the tide will be stemmed, in the bottom of the map, the major logistical base for the destroyed units. as can be seen from this -- i will point out two things about the way the battlefield is evolving. first looking at strategic geometry. if you look at it, isis and mosul have great strategic depth in terms of the federal forces would have to travel, tremendous strategic depth, 350 kilometers of contested terrain. but isis' west/east strategic depth to the east is narrow. the key things they want to hold onto is within very close striking distance of kurdish forces. this is how important it is to get the kurdish forces involved in the fight. the government has to come to the kurds with solutions on oil authority issues. baghdad has to make some compromises. we can all argue about the fine points later. for now, there is a bigger issue to deal with. the kurds are already fighting at a number of points on the map. likewise, where the kurds moved forward to take control of these disputed areas, the iraqi army buffer between them and isis is now gone. they're taking casualties. you can see martyrdom statements coming up on social media sites. the kurds are in the fight. the kurdish leadership hate radical islamists. they suffered extensively from degradations in the past. they're not willing to have a major isis control center within an hours drive from the economic capital of kurdistan. no successful emerging economy in the world has been able to have a huge al qaeda presence in a city of 1.8 million people and hours drive a way. the second brief observation of want to make is we need to pay a lot of attention to the moral dimension of this crisis. by my estimation, a full 60 of the iraqi army combat battalions cannot be accounted for. 60 out of the 243 cannot be accounted for, with all equipment lost. this is a mammoth refitting job to put these units back together and arm them properly for combat. this is an area where the u.s. will become the arsenal of democracy. no one likes the idea of having to refit the iraqi army again after the u.s. taxpayer did it the first time. this time iraq will be paying. one aspect of this is the refitting role. as important as that, turning around a defeated army and enabling it to fight again, very military with a long tradition, a proud tradition. among arab countries, they're one of the best militaries. they have many proud achievements to point to, including the feet of the militia in 2008 and their part in the surge the defeated al qaeda in the first place. these points are laid out in great detail. it is one of the most difficult tasks you can imagine. it would not take them in the u.s. partners at the divisional level and above to insert some wisdom in to their ways the iraqi security can pick themselves up and dust themselves off and get back into the fight to rid taking baby steps. feeding these units so that they can win small successes, wind -- win small, easy battles. the final thing i will say as well is that the provision of u.s. military assistance on the ground is something that we need to think very seriously about, as i'm sure the president is. listen to his remarks, i hope what i'm detecting their is that we play hardball with the iraqi government about coming out with a political deal, about ending all of this sectarian nonsense, ethnic bullying of the kurds. if some of the very disruptive policies of the government can end, i hope we are willing to help out this long-standing ally. if we put u.s. air power into iraq right now, it is not the bullet that will solve everything, but it will have tremendous moral effect. it is a massive boost to them. you don't need to use a lot of it for have -- for to have a tremendous amount of moral impact. and the people who say, how could we be sure the strikes are getting targeted? don't we need people on the ground? we do. we do need a special task force operation on the ground. we do need eyes on the ground. when we turned around the libyan regimes near destruction of benghazi and the french airstrikes and other airstrikes turn that around, that had enormous effect and there are many instances in iraq where i can imagine a little bit of air power going at very long way. we have already got boots on the ground in iraq. the people on the embassy -- i wish this boots on the ground phrase would leave our lexicon because it just doesn't mean anything. it is an excuse not to do something. we already have boots on the ground. use whatever legal conceit is required to get some u.s. advisers up to the forward headquarters and to get them on the from line. i will say this with a caveat. they could already be there right now. if it is not the case, it is something we should very seriously consider. space for one final comment. it is not hard at this stage to imagine iraq becoming syria. like falluja, just 35 miles from baghdad international airport. it is not hard to imagine the iraqi government turning to somebody who has a proven track record of protecting their allies and that is the iranians. they have stabilized the regime's defense. it is unfortunate, but when i was in baghdad, in march, what i heard is that the iraqi government feels it needs to use some of the same formula that assad did and maybe some of the same help. so really, this is the time for a desperate lead to the u.s. government on behalf of the iraqis out there who are willing to fight. the u.s. needs to make a credible gesture at this time. a credible gesture of military support right now. if we are using the withholding of military support to lean on the iraqi government to come up with a political deal, good. i hope there is the baseline determination underneath that to eventually do something to stabilize the situation. it cannot be a cosmetic half measure. there have been too many of them in recent years. we have to commit to the defense of iraq. we cannot leave iraq to isis or the iranians. those are my comments. >> jim, do you want to speak from the podium? >> i will speak from here. >> i put the map back up. >> the map is great. okay. what i'm going to say is going to parallel much of what you said. thanks for coming here today. but two months ago, it seems like two years ago, when i was diverted from my main job looking at the middle east into ukraine, i wrote something saying that the crimean situation was the biggest challenge to the united states since 9/11, if not since the and of the cold war. i have changed my opinion. what is happening right now in iraq is the biggest challenge since 9/11, at least. here is why. back in september, president obama addressed the un's general assembly. he said, in the middle east, there are four critical issues that would require all elements of american power, the euphemism for military force. securing the oil lines, combating international terror, standing by our allies and partners, and weapons of mass destruction. other than the last, at least for the moment, they all three of the others are very much in play right now. the largest concentration of al qaeda we have ever seen anywhere is in this combined area of western iraq and on into syria. they're the nastiest of all of them. secondly, we have already seen oil prices spike. iraq is the second-largest exporter of oil in opec. the iea estimates it could go up to 6 million barrels of production per day, two thirds of what saudi arabia on sundays produces. this is not a recipe for stability. in all kinds of ways i will not get into, if there is instability in iraq, particularly if we have no government worthy of the name in baghdad, you will month have a -- you will not have a whole lot of development in the oil sector anywhere, except perhaps in kurdistan. our interests are at stake. the president realizes that. let's try to take a look at the fact that he is being briefed on. i will keep it short and i will keep it to what general casey used to call the major muscle movements. speed is of the essence. a lot of the things that i and everybody in this audience could say about iraq are not important at this point. there are only a few things that are really crucially important by the major actors in the next few days. there are six. most importantly, this isil. we will hear more about what makes them up. they are facing a decision. they have ceased almost all of the sunni arab areas of iraq. the question is, do they carry out their threat and go after baghdad? they certainly can. i know the area to the north and south of baghdad. it still is an area where al qaeda has always had a presence. it is a mixed sunni-shiite area. they have already seized two of the towns this morning in the province to the north and the northeast of baghdad. they could pretty much cut it off. the problem is even if they cannot take the city, known think they can come of the question is, how do you get fuel, food, water, electricity, and all the other things a country, a capital, five or 6 million people needs if they are surrounding you? i'm not speaking theoretically. in 2004, with 130,000 american troops in country, that was the situation we faced some days in baghdad in june, july, august. being hit by the al-qaeda people. it was very tough, even though we had overwhelming air power. they need to make a decision. we will have to see what they're going to do. that is the most important thing. if they do decide to stay in the sunni areas, we will have a classic counterinsurgency. the things mike laid out the need to be done for reconciliation, all true. american troops are not going to liberate the sunni areas of iraq. that will be kurds, sunnis, shia or nobody. we will provide the logistics, training, and firepower in the months ahead. i certainly would not recommend it. if they are not going to fight their own country then we shouldn't on the ground. because it would be bloody. that's a long-term question, as history goes. if isil is pushing toward baghdad, the president is faced with a very different situation. we have americans right in the middle of this thing. the government, the iraqi army, and some of the shia militias are in this mix, if they can hold, maintain the cohesion, use their vastly superior firepower and extraordinarily large number of superior troops to hold the territory where the families lived, then we won't have to worry about the siege, they will be able to push these people back and keep the roads open. it will be messy, but they can do it. that is a big if, folks. from what we have seen in mosul and elsewhere. if they cannot, if isis decides to surround baghdad and if the authorities are not able to break that siege, i'm sure they are strong enough to avoid being overrun. a city of 6 million people is not going to be overrun by 5000 people, i'm almost sure of that. but, they may not be able to maneuver, use firepower effectively against people who are very good at this at this time and the may find themselves essentially besieged. if you get through those two decision points, you get to the other four actors. the kurds are sitting on the green lines, the mixed areas. if there is danger anywhere a kurd is living, that is essentially what we have right now they have two other choices. they are on either side of mosul. there on either side of the fault line where isil is. you can exert tremendous military pressure on isil if they want to. if they see a total mess, disintegration, iranian control to the south, they are out. they have talked about this for years, they have opened certain options. that is something to watch. they have decisions based upon these other decisions. the next actor is the iranians. if baghdad is besieged, if some of the cities that are so important to shia islam in the south are under threat, it is very hard to imagine the acting if somebody else does not act. the second to the last actor is the turk. they're in an awkward position because they have 80 people in mosul seized by the isil people. that puts limits on what they can do. they are still in major actor with a major military capability. they have close ties to the kurds. watch them. the final actor is the united states. the most important. you just should the president. he said he would consult with congress to go over options. he ruled out ground forces. it that means major ground forces. there are already military advisers on the ground. he did not rule out airstrikes, but he did not rule it in what he said is, i cannot do anything militarily without a political process. going back to the first of the six actors, if isil stays in the sunni areas, that is an intelligent, acceptable way to move forward. all they can do is provide aerial firepower for some of these ground forces. unless the ground forces show up for the fight, there is no since sense dropping bombs on these people. if we are facing either a siege of baghdad and almost certainly the iranians coming in in a big way, we have to act quick late just quickly. if he is saying he is going to leverage my decision to use force to get the best possible political deal, that is smart politics, smart diplomacy, and more power to him. having spent years and set a rack to get this kind of deal of failed miserably -- inside iraq and get this deal and failed miserably, what he is telling us is that until that happens, the planes will stand and iaia is moving forward, then other actors are going to shape iraq and the middle east. that is the question that he is facing today. people will say well, you know, what are we going to hit with targets? the north vietnamese invaded on the easter offensive. it was exactly like 1975 when they overran the country. then the planes came. the f4 is, the b-52s come you could feel the ground rumble and every fiona me soldier -- vietnamese soldier could feel it. but by bit they held the ground. by the paris peace accords, all but one small town had been taken back in the country. we have forward observers. nonetheless, it was the use of military power, it was the use of real power, sometimes not knowing exactly where the enemy was that turned the tide. in libya, many times we did not have ground reserves. what we were dealing with was cars of mobile army troops. what we are dealing with our pickup trucks of isis personnel rolling around at 30 miles per hour. there are vulnerable to airstrikes. i will stop there. thank you very much. >> thank you. thanks for coming out and for everybody watching online. i am going to be talking about isis, islamic state of iraq, and get into who they are. what they've been up to. this did not necessarily come out of nowhere, even though it is sort of being portrayed as if it has. there has been a reemergence of isis, which originally is the group that was in control of. they have changed their name and rebranded over recent years. they started reemerging in april 2013. this is when isis decided to extend its control beyond iraq and into syria. this is also the time when they officially broke away from al qaeda itself. al qaeda in early february 2014 confirmed isis was no longer part of the organization. while the movement and surge did push them back, they were not completely defeated. there was still at least 300 people that were killed per month in iraq from around 2008 until april 2013. what was important about syria was they were able to get resources and money and fighters back into iraq when operating inside of syria. one of the things we have seen in the past six months or so is that there had been a return of foreign fighters into the iraqi arena. many of these originally designed to syria to fight against the assad regime. isis unplugged them and brought them into the iraq so divide as well. since april 2013, we have seen violence rise 3.5 times more than what we saw on average in the previous four and a half years. in addition, one of the things that helped them out is they had a prison break last july at abu ghraib were at least 500 individuals were released from prison. some of these guys were arrested and detained during the surge. many of these had experiences which further provided more levels of competency to isis' operation. of course, we saw earlier this year that they were able to take over falluja and parts of ramadi. another aspect of what isis has been doing that we did not say last decade and is one of the reasons why people -- the backlash against them originally was they had a hearts and minds strategy, whether it is providing food, medication, religious classes, outreach to tribal figures, as well as allowing people in the safaa movement to repent and join their cause about getting -- without getting killed. therefore, more and more victories have raised the level of prestige for this organization. isis operatives now operate in both syria and iraq and view the border as nothing more than going from one province in their islamic state to another, not going from one nation say to the other. after mosul was liberated, and there are other islamist factions involved in the takeover, when isis takes over an area, they view it as now under their sovereign control. therefore, every individual within the territory must pledge allegiance to the leader of the group. if you do not go along with the program, you essentially a death wish. this is the backdrop of how they rule. yesterday morning, they released a charter of the city to residents which highlights more prohibitions on actions and things people can potentially do. if you steal, you will get your hand chopped off. you have to perform all five daily prayers on time. drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes are forbidden. carrying non-isis flags and/or weapons is illegal. all shrines and graves will be destroyed since isis views them as polytheist. and women must wear the full body clothing. sunnis within the town, if they worked within the government and institutions, if they repented, they would be fine and would not be executed. we also already have a case study of how isis does rule in syria. i am going to highlight some of the ways they have been in charge, in addition to the criminal aspects. it is not just all terror. when isis took over a city in syria, they started setting up by putting up a lot of billboards in the city that had themes related to jihad and sharia. other themes related -- they tried to reach out to local notables and tribal figures because they wanted to stay off any potential backlash that could happen in the future, and the same way we saw last decade in iraq when there was an uprising against isis in the mid-2000's and what most people do not realize is that isis' operations are highly sophisticated and they do have a bureaucracy themselves, too. i will go through how they have been governing these areas in syria. in terms of the law and order side, they have sharia courts. this is where they can throw down their rulings related to somebody getting their hand chopped off for thievery are people getting executions for apotheosizing. we have seen a number of individuals getting crucified, which i'm pretty sure not many people have seen in the modern era. they have a police service that goes around. they have a consumer protection authority which looks at the different markets and places where you can get food in local places in syria and decides whether a food product is edible or not, essentially, in the same way that the fda would do something. they also have a vigilante aspect of their law and order side where they have burned cigarettes and destroyed tombs. we saw one of the more larger tombs or shrines in iraq being destroyed earlier this year. in terms of public works, they helped build a new market. they have an electrical office which helps train and repair electrical services throughout the town. they have had a lot of road were done in some areas where they have rehabilitated roads, whether it is in terms of putting up plants in the medians, and they have also been able to continue operating the dam. they have set up an office to provide money for the needy. they claim that this helps also with farmers and their harvests. they are now conducting a post office. on the more ideological side of things, they have a media outlet where they pass out dvd's of video releases they put out online. they have a truck which roves around with a lot of different things related to islam and their ideology. they stop in some areas to talk to children and adults to try to teach them at their interpretations of islam. they set up a number of religious schools for boys and girls. if you memorize the koran, you can get a certificate. they have also provided kid fun days where kids can play around on these inflatable slides and moonwalk type of devices, as well as have food and eating contests. in addition, for older members of society, they have created sessions for imams and teachers to be trained. more regular social services, they have helped run bread factories and provided fruits and vegetables for many people. they have even set up a food kitchen for the needy. they also set up an office for orphans to help register them and then hopefully place them with a family. while the taliban has been very paranoid about vaccinations after the cia operation against osama bin laden, there have been vaccination programs put out by isis. they even have a cub scouts program which is far more worrying because you have children from the ages of around six to 14 that are now in these housing places in iraqa and that then put into training camps. they are essentially halving child soldiers being set up. so what is next for isis? this is sort of what the potential could be. this is what we're seeing in syria, but this is what the potential could be in iraq now that they have taken over some areas. it is likely they will try to consolidate their strength with the new money from the mosul central bank, and that far exceeds any money that osama bin laden had. there are rumors that they have been buying off people inside of mosul. this will be used to reinforce the front in syria. as many people know, earlier this year, a bunch of rebel groups started an uprising with isis and pushed them out of idlib. it is likely they will use this to try and push it back into aleppo and idlib. my question is -- are they stretched thin? they have 7000 to 2000 people, but they span from aleppo all the way to mosul. many people do not like their ideology and do not want to live through this. obviously, the type of penalties that they pursue has created a backlash. we have already seen statements by some tribal members in ramadi and mosul about how they will stand up to the maliki government and isis itself. the islamic faith is a reality. it could prove difficult and provide more ability to consolidate the state. for jihadists worldwide, victories registered by isis in the perception that the so-called will of god is on its side against enemies will only enhance the prestige of joining the group and furthering its goals. this is the state of isis right now. it is a lot different than what al qaeda was up to last decade, but it is a very sophisticated and organized organization. this will be more difficult to dislodge than anything we have seen before. thank you. >> thank you for those sobering remarks. mike, are you with us? >> yes, i am. >> very good. let me open up a discussion session by asking you if you can bring us up to date on the report concerning iranian military involvement. who it is, where they are, what they seem to be doing? >> it is very difficult to come up with categorical information on this without being in country and seeing it with your own eyes. i spend a lot of time studying the militias in iraq and meeting them on many occasions, quite unnervingly. but what i found was that they were -- let's just say, the iranians have been very nervous since 2007 about risking irgc offices directly inside iraq. now, since the u.s. left in 2011, i am sure some of that fear or trepidation is gone. we have seen senior officers killed on the other side of the border over in syria. it is very likely they have got military advisers operating in many ways however like to see u.s. officers operating. you know, one thing is for sure, wherever you have got these u.s. officers operating, you are very unlikely to have iranian officers operating in the same places. if anything, that is a good reason for having u.s. officers on the front line or at least at the front headquarters to ensure that there are some eyes on what is actually happening. but around samarra, samarra is critical to this. i would recommend to you the work from the institute on shia islamist groups in iraq and syria. samarra is a shrine city, a place where a shrine was blown up in february 2006, providing a final spot in the civil war that lasted for two plus years. isis tried to overrun it on june 5 but failed, thank god. about 800 meters short of the shrine. they tried again after the major collapse in security forces, and that is one of those nightmare scenarios that everyone in coalition forces and analysts have been talking about for years. what if they take out that shrine again? just as shia islamist militias from iraq have been defending the shrines in syria, in damascus, there have been reports of defending shrines in samarra. they will do the same in northern baghdad and in karbala. where there is one of these iranian-backed shia militia actors, essentially the iraqi version of lebanese hezbollah, there will often be an irgc trainer or advisor not that far behind. >> jim, we just heard mike say iranians are probably sending irgc guys doing what he would have expected americans to be doing but in a different context. you have been on both sides of this. in baghdad, trying to push the political reconciliation, and in the situation room offering advice to presidents on how to and what sort of military force to bring to bear. can you give us a little glimpse into what you think is happening, both angles here? what are we telling specifically to maliki? the timeframe the president announced today was a matter of days. is it possible to see the type of political reconciliation that he spoke about in 72 hours? on the military side, what sort of preparations do you expect are going on right now for the type of action that you would like to see? >> when you mine the statement in bits and pieces and you put it all together, there is pretty good outline of what the president will be doing over the next few days. what he is saying is he's going to move assets into place. we just heard that an aircraft carrier has moved into the gulf. he talks about intelligence. that is both -- everything from analysts diverting their focus on this to satellites to drones, the entire network of u.s. intelligence systems will be turned on to this situation at every level. we worked very, very, very good at this when dealing with al qaeda from the period roughly 2004 through 2011, and there is a lot of that reserve capability there. nonetheless, he will also be preparing the military for whatever contingency the president gives a green light to. it is not unwise or unexpected for the president to link the situation with political developments and re-conciliation. what he really means is we are not going to know for a few days, but it would be on rise unwise for him to reveal this by saying -- i can say this from the outside -- we want the maliki to be a new government and a different government and take a different attitude towards the kurds and sunnis. but if isis surrounds baghdad, we're going to hit them anyway. he cannot say that, even if he has decided to do that. i have no indication he has decided to do that. because you always want to leverage what you are doing for an ally or friend with what you want that ally or friend to do for you, particularly when it is in that ally or friend's own interest. we have spent 11 years talking not just to maliki, but to every political leader, all the political leaders, that if they do not hang together, they are going to hang separately. that is what we are seeing before us today. it is good advice that he has given. in terms of the specifics, vice president biden called maliki yesterday. i am sure having been in some of these calls that the u.s. message was delivered with vigor and with a certain bluntness, and that is good under these conditions. i am sure it included a very strong admonition that maliki has to change his approach towards sectarian issues and towards his political domination of the military. it is one of the reasons the military melted away. secondly, it also would have included the specifics of what america might offer and under what conditions. we do not know that yet. as i said, it is good that the president is not signaling, both to the enemy but also before he talks to congress, what exactly he is going to do. it is also good that he ensures that maliki feels under pressure to do things in return. again, this is most important, as the president said, in the days ahead if we are facing a surge into the baghdad area, into karbala and the south. that could lead to an extremely dramatic situation, including to our own personnel, and it could lead to a significant iranian intervention or a significant kurdish reaction. if isis is either slowed down themselves, and they are not eight-feet tall as we have seen in samarra, as we have seen with the kurds, people can stand up to them. it's not that many of them. they have momentum on their side, and that is important for the military, but once they are stopped, then people can hold their ground. it is possible that the iraqis will be able to hold her ground and the non-sunni-arab areas. if that is so, we move to the other scenario. the white house has to be prepared for a longer struggle. remember, the president's statement yesterday was "a permanent presence of al qaeda in iraq and syria will not be tolerated." he has to think about how he is going to do this, along with his commitment to the american people not to but troops on the ground, by which he means 101st airborne, the first army division. they will be deluged by 1001 factoids and irrelevant ideas and other schemes that are instantly torment you. i cannot describe how painful this process is. >> thank you. and then aaron, to complete this circle, you followed isis for quite a long time. given the options they have in front of them, what are they most likely to do, go to baghdad? hold tight on current territory? what are the most likely to do? >> knowing isis and how they have operated in the past and the excitement i have seen from all their followers and supporters online in the past week is that they are likely to have a big head and potentially overplay them selves in the coming days and weeks. whether they do that or not is obviously the question, but they stopped of past activities, it is likely that they will try and push because that is how they view the world. in addition, i suspect that there are already signs that some of the humvees and other types of military equipment that was all them take in mosul are already back in syria now. it is likely that they will use that as a new infusion in cash and weapons on their front. they will potentially push back into aleppo city. it is likely that, knowing them, they will try and push on both fronts in iraq and in syria. this probably could provide a great opportunity though to the syrian rebels differ the fight against isis, because they are stretching themselves thin, as well as any forces in the iraqi arena, as well. >> thank you very much. i will turn to questions, starting with andrew right in the middle. >> thank you for great presentation, guys. we have had a lot of prescriptions from all three of you, particularly aaron and ambassador jeffrey on what to do in iraq, but it seems to me that a lot of this is coming out of syria. i mean, isis was born in iraq but metastasized in syria, then come out for a double or nothing game of whatever we have in front of us. we have an organization that does not recognize the boundary that have divided the middle east for over a century. so my question is, what do we do on the syria end of this equation, and how does it affect the debate we have seen recently with ambassador robert ford's calls to arm the sunni opposition in syria? thank you. >> very quickly, we had a horrible syrian situation which threatened to do exactly this kind of game changing thing for a couple of years, and we did not do very much about it. it metastasized, and it is the mess we have now. we're going to have that mess tomorrow, next month, at least, and into the future, regardless of what we do or do not do. what is different right now is these guys are moving on a path that could be an immediate dramatic game changer to the entire middle east. so there is a difference in perspective. it is very hard to communicate this. i have been trying to do it for three days. the president tried to do it and was not completely clear. we have a longer-term problem of a wide swath of sunni, arab am a largely desert territory in the middle of the levant that has been taken over by a terrorist group in syria, iraq, and other insurgent groups that are unhappy with the government. it is not really ungoverned because there are a variety of voices governing it, but many of them do not have our best interests at heart. it is a tremendous, complicated long-term problem that will require the president to get everybody lined up in the region, political solutions, reconsolidation, stability operations, and all of that, if we are willing to pay the price and engaged that thoroughly. i do not know. he is moving slowly in that direction. that is the longer-term problem. the immediate problem we have, and he seems to indicate this in his final remarks when answering a question -- the speech, as i said, if you mine it and sew it together, you can kind of get a sort of way forward. but in being asked a question at the very end, then you basically hear him say, look, this is going to be a few days. i have to get my ducks in order. it comes closer to, he does realize that if isis moves on baghdad or some of these other areas, if the iranians threatened to move in in a big way, he may have to make some immediate decisions. that is how i would separate it. obviously, he knows, because he included it. he knows it is one front. he said, i cannot allow a permanent refuge, a permanent presence of isis, al qaeda, in iraq and syria. he knows it is a common front. how this fits with the battle but he also is waging, sort of, against assad, is a whole other question. >> ok, thank you. yes, in front here? >> thank you very much. this is one of the very few events that i cannot find anyone to disagree with. you really have nailed the issues exactly right. thank you for the presentations. let's take us back to the other side, how iraqis view this. i think that is very important, because they are mainly interested in it. the ambassador quite rightly said that this has been the biggest challenge since 9/11. i would say this is the biggest challenge to the shia iraqis. 65% of the population since 1991. can the united states afford another perception of a betrayal by the united states, which means this time a permanent gift if iran comes to the rescue and the united states drags its feet, making conditions -- i would like to see the united states solve the situation, not the iranians or someone else, because that will be bad to the cost to the iraqis into the united states. it is very important to address and for the administration to understand. >> ok, i will take the first stab at that. you hit on a very important point. for those of us -- you may remember, i apologized for 1991 publicly. here is the problem, and i am being very honest, folks -- the united states can essentially take almost any loss and live with it. that is what makes us such an ally for everybody. we can lose vietnam, and did, and live to fight another day in kosovo and in kuwait. so the short answer is, yeah, we can survive with the shia of iraq, feeling that we totally abandoned them. other people feel we totally abandoned them, tibetans and others. i am sure some others are not feeling too good about us either. but we can move on, because that is the reality. there is another reality, you do this often enough, you develop a patent of supporting people, and then walking away from them and demanding that all the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted before you move and it will be a force more expensive than the next 10 militaries combined. then people will stop organizing themselves in our world differently, and we are not going to like that organization. so the shia have a vote, just like the tibetans and the crimeans and everybody else. in the sunni arabs have a vote. a lot of them are not happy with us abandoning them either. and the kurds are not too happy. >> yes, barbara? we'll work our way around. >> thanks very much. thank you so much for doing this. my question is about maliki. can he be part of the solution? he has had eight years. he has done nothing but go after sunnis, kurds become increasingly paranoid, corrupt, appointing relatives. can he actually rise to the occasion? >> well, don't look at me -- [laughter] >> mike, what do you think? >> [inaudible] >> let's get the volume up here. >> i will be diplomatic because i travel to iraq quite frequently. first of all, you have to respect the election result, including perhaps a personal vote which is an indication that at least in baghdad, maliki put all the votes together. but that is ducking the question, i guess. if we look back over the last four years, it has been a dismal failure. there are some bright spots. the relationship with kuwait, the oil production. but everything else has been a dismal failure. really it has been brought about by failures in the iraqi government, rather than how great the bad guys are. one has to wonder when we look back in 2018, 2014 to 2018, whether we see more of the same or whether we see a turnaround. as we saw during 2006 and 2010 -- that is the key for whoever leads iraq next. that is what they should be asking themselves. how are they going to be remembered? as the guy who lost it all or the guy who did whatever he had to do and dealt with whoever he had to deal with to keep it together? the maliki government, when i was there in march, key leadership explained exactly what they were going to do in a third term. and some of it was encouraging. increasing support for technocrats with streamlined decision-making systems. a good way. not just talking about taking of the power for yourself but building a real

Related Keywords

Karbala , Iraq , Vietnam , Republic Of , Samarra , Sala Ad Din , Australia , Damascus , Dimashq , Syria , Afghanistan , Iran , Turkey , California , United States , Kosovo , Ankara , Falluja , Al Anbar , Lebanon , Aleppo , Lab , Washington , District Of Columbia , Ukraine , Tikrit , Baghdad , Idlib , Albania , Ramadi , Dayr Az Zawr , Libya , France , Paris , Rhôalpes , Kuwait , Americans , Australian , America , Turk , Iraqis , Vietnamese , Iranians , Iranian , Afghan , French , Iraqi , Libyan , Syrian , Lebanese , American , Michael Knights , Al Qaeda , Shia Islamist , Tony Abbott , Shia Islam , James Jeffords , Jim Jeffrey , John Kirby , James Jeffrey , Abu Ghraib , Robert Ford ,