Senators Graham & Reed: ISIS, 2016, & sequestration
Today on CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley, two members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), spoke to Crowley about the implications of sending American ground troops to combat ISIS, the sequestration, and the 2016 presidential candidate speculation.
TEXT HIGHLIGHTS
Senator Graham on arming and training the Free Syrian Army: “And at the end of the day, you cannot destroy ISIL in Syria without a ground component. And what we’re doing with the Free Syrian Army is militarily unsound. To train these young men up in Saudi Arabia, without first establishing a no-fly zone to take Assad’s airpower off the table will lead to their slaughter. It is immoral. There is no way that I can see how we fix the problem in Iraq and Syria without American ground troops.”
Senator Graham on a presidential bid in 2016: ” I know what it’s like to run for president. I’m running for the Senate. I know what it takes to put an organization together, to put the money together. I have been with Senator McCain twice in this endeavor. I am nowhere near there. I am all in running for the Senate.”
Senator Reed on his opposition to sending US ground troops in Iraq: “I think the most effective way to use the best aspects of both countries is our superiority in the air, our ability for intelligence, for surveillance, for using that force and making sure — and getting the Iraqi forces up to speed so that they can conduct military operations on the ground.”
A full transcript of the interviews are available after the jump.
TRANSCRIPT
THIS IS A RUSH FDCH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CROWLEY:
I’m joined by two members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Democratic Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island. Thank you both for being here.
SEN. JACK REED (D), RHODE ISLAND: Thank you.
CROWLEY: Senator Graham, first to you. It’s — so, it’s been about two months since the U.S., first to protect U.S. interests in Iraq, began airstrikes there.
Is it too soon to tell whether there’s been any success in at least containing ISIS in Iraq?
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: I’m sure there’s been some. The idea of hitting them in Syria is long overdue, because it makes it harder for them to reinforce Iraq.
But this strategy of aerial bombardment is not going to work to destroy ISIL. And when General Allen, who I respect greatly, says it may be up to a year before the Iraqi army can try to retake Mosul, that’s just unacceptable.
The one thing I would tell you about these two segments, that the stronger Ebola gets in Africa, the more it spreads, the more entrenched it is, the more endangered we are, the same for radical Islam in the Mideast. It seems to be that the president is all in when it comes to Ebola. I want to compliment him for sending troops to help get ahead of this in Africa, but we have a series of half- measures with ISIL that are going to draw this conflict out, and will not lead to the ISIL’s destruction, which makes it much more dangerous for over here.
CROWLEY: You know…
GRAHAM: The stronger they get in the Mideast, the more danger we are here at home.
CROWLEY: Senator, you know as well as anyone that conducting any kind of war and conducting a war that includes U.S. ground troops, you cannot do without public support.
GRAHAM: Right.
CROWLEY: As far as I can see in the polls, certainly, there is support for what’s going on now. But when it comes to ground troops — and we have now, I think, seen the first death when it comes to a U.S. Marine that…
GRAHAM: Right.
CROWLEY: … was involved in some way in the fight against ISIS — there is not the public support there for another ground war where we already spent eight-and-a-half years and it’s a mess.
GRAHAM: Well, all I can tell you is that the job of the commander in chief is to protect the country. The job of House members and senators is protect the country. And I think most Americans understand, if we don’t destroy ISIL, if they survive our best shot, that we are all less safe. And at the end of the day, you cannot destroy ISIL in Syria without a ground component. And what we’re doing with the Free Syrian Army is militarily unsound.
To train these young men up in Saudi Arabia, without first establishing a no-fly zone to take Assad’s airpower off the table will lead to their slaughter. It is immoral. There is no way that I can see how we fix the problem in Iraq and Syria without American ground troops.
This mythical Arab army that we’re trying to get up to go in on the ground in Syria will need a lot of American hand-holding. And if it takes a year before we can go to Mosul, I can only imagine how strong ISIL will be.
So, Mr. President, level with the American people. You need boots on the ground. And these are human beings with hopes and dreams, not just boots. American soldiers need to go back to Syria and Iraq as part of a coalition. And we’re going to need more than 4,000 to destroy ISIL in Iraq and Syria.
CROWLEY: But, Senator, if I could, what can many thousand U.S. troops along with coalition troops do…
GRAHAM: Right.
CROWLEY: … in the next year that 100,000 U.S. troops couldn’t do in eight-and-a-half years?
GRAHAM: Well, we left Iraq in a good place.
And to those who say that this was the Iraqis’ decision to have no troops behind in 2011, I hope you will read Panetta’s book, listen to Ryan Crocker. President Obama made a fatal mistake. Iraq was in a good spot. He got to zero when it came to American troops because that’s what he wanted.
And he had a chance in 2012 to train the Free Syrian Army. He overruled his entire national security team. He got the results he wanted in Iraq. And that led to the rise of ISIL. This is not some tornado or hurricane that you can’t control. His incompetent decisions in Syria and Iraq led to this problem.
You can defeat ISIL. We must defeat ISIL, but it’s going to require an American ground component, not the 82nd Airborne. It’s going to require a coalition to go in on the ground, just not in the air.
CROWLEY: But the question is, if we couldn’t — if we couldn’t achieve security, if we couldn’t train Iraqi troops…
GRAHAM: We did.
CROWLEY: … to be up to snuff, then why can we do it now? GRAHAM: We did. We — we — we did.
(CROSSTALK)
CROWLEY: But if we did, then wasn’t the president’s decision OK? If Iraq was in a great spot, why argue that we should have stayed?
GRAHAM: No.
Everybody, every military commander said we needed between 10,000 and 20,000 troops. President Obama wanted zero. He said he promised to end the war. Well, what he did is, he lost the war, and this has come back to haunt us.
Hope the next president will understand, listen to your commanders. He had a chance in 2012 to train the Free Syrian Army. They were about to beat Assad. Hezbollah came in with Iranian help to turn the tide of battle. The Russians doubled down, and we abandoned the Free Syrian Army.
And ISIL is a result of these two mistakes. We have to destroy ISIL. The president says they only understand the language of force. The president is right. Unfortunately for us, the language of force is the second language for President Obama.
When he talks about what he won’t do, that’s all the terrorists hear. When he says there will be no ground component to go into Iraq and Syria, American ground component, the terrorists understand what that means militarily.
So this strategy to defeat ISIL has to have an American ground component. I am sorry it does. I am sorry we have made mistakes. Bush made mistakes. He corrected. Obama has made mistakes. He needs to correct.
But this strategy we have regarding the Free Syrian Army is going to get all of these kids slaughtered if you don’t deal with Assad’s air force. We can win in Iraq. We can win in Syria. It’s going to take commitment. It’s going to take effort. And God help us all if we don’t win.
CROWLEY: Senator, quickly, just a couple of quick political questions. The first is, if Republicans should take over the U.S. Senate in the elections next month, what would you like to see prioritized?
GRAHAM: Number one, to sit down with a guy like Jack Reed, who is going to win his election, a good man, to replace sequestration.
You just heard a segment about the spread of Ebola throughout Africa. We’re cutting the CDC’s budget, the NIH budget. We’re taking the military budget under sequestration cuts down to the smallest Army since 1940, the smallest Navy since 1915. We’re destroying the Intelligence Committee.
I want to sit down with Senator McCain, Jack Reed, Dianne Feinstein, a coalition of the willing, to replace these defense and non-defense cuts that are destroying our ability to protect our country, do something like Simpson-Bowles, where Republicans have to give on revenue, close some tax deductions in the tax code, put the…
CROWLEY: OK.
GRAHAM: … the money into replacing sequestration, and some entitlement reform.
And, finally, I want any deal that involves the Iranian nuclear program, which is the biggest issue facing the world, whether or not we’re going to control the Iranian nuclear ambitions, to come to the Congress for an up-or-down vote.
I fear we’re on track to have a North Korea deal where we allow enrichment. The only thing it — protects a breakout for a nuclear weapon is the U.N. That didn’t work in North Korea. So, any deal with Iran, Candy, should come to Congress for an up-or-down vote.
CROWLEY: And what’s this about you running for president?
(LAUGHTER)
GRAHAM: I know what it’s like to run for president. I’m running for the Senate. I know what it takes to put an organization together, to put the money together. I have been with Senator McCain twice in this endeavor.
I am nowhere near there. I am all in running for the Senate. And, in 2015, I want to work with Jack Reed to replace sequestration. And I want to make sure that the Iranian nuclear deal is a good deal before it becomes law.
CROWLEY: Nicely punted, Senator.
(LAUGHTER)
CROWLEY: Thank you so much.
GRAHAM: Thank you very much.
(LAUGHTER)
CROWLEY: I appreciate your time. Nicole Bayat Grajewski
CROWLEY: Joining me now, Democratic Senator Jack Reed of the Armed Services committee. Senator, it’s good to have you here.
SEN. JACK REED (D), RHODE ISLAND: Thank you.
CROWLEY: Let me start out with a couple of things picking up on some of the things that Senator Graham said.
First, I want to play you what’s now sort of a famous line President Obama did an interview on CBS “60 Minutes” last Sunday. And here’s what he said about the threat from ISIS.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think our head of the intelligence community, Jim Clapper, has acknowledged that I think they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CROWLEY: So, if this is correct, it seems to me that the intelligence community, once again, has failed to see what was actually happening. And doesn’t that call for something to happen in the intelligence committee, changes to be made?
REED: I think it requires a careful review of the — and a constant review of what is going on.
But there are two facts. One was the rise of ISIS as a political/military force and that was I think pretty aptly disclosed. The issue that I think caught the intelligence community by surprise was the lack of capacity of the Iraqi military forces and particularly the political disenfranchisement of the Sunni community by Maliki.
And I think what really came together was those two forces. A military rise and the organizational rise of ISIS but then what was most surprising was the way Maliki had militarized the politics and politicized the military and led to a situation where the Iraqi military forces just fled in the face of ISIS.
CROWLEY: I want to read you something that Leon Panetta, former…
REED: Yes.
CROWLEY: …former defense secretary, former head of the CIA actually (ph).
(CROSSTALK)
CROWLEY: Yes, said in — he has a book coming out. I’m sure you’ve heard. And this is part of what he said quoted by “Time” magazine, “To this day, I believe that a small U.S. troop presence in Iraq could have effectively advised the Iraqi military on how to deal with the al Qaeda’s resurgence and the sectarian violence that has engulfed the country.”
So, basically the man — and we all know that the president was advised to leave a troop there. He is (INAUDIBLE) the Iraqis, you know, that we’ve crossed that bridge. Was it a mistake? Are we there now because U.S. troops did not stay, regardless of whose fault it was…
REED: Yes.
CROWLEY: …that the troops did not stay there?
REED: Yes. I think first you have to put this in a context. The context first of all, we’re still living with the consequences of the war in Iraq, which I opposed. I thought it was a strategic…
CROWLEY: Right.
REED: …misjudgment.
The second consequence is the agreement that President Bush signed with Prime Minister Maliki, ratified by the Iraqi parliament that all American troops would leave at the end of 2011.
So, when President Obama —
CROWLEY: Absent an agreement on kind of supports (ph) —
(CROSSTALK)
REED: Well, it wasn’t a question of absent agreement it was they were leaving.
What the hope was, and what I think was a sincere hope, is that the interim something could be worked out but the leverage we had in 2008 was much less than the leverage we have in 2011. And we also had a situation where we were depending once again upon Maliki, his goodwill and his good wishes. There were discussions about how he was willing to entertain some troops and willing not to entertain it.
But I think what we’ve seen in the subsequent years is Maliki’s ability to govern and his interests from the state of Iraq is less than his own personal survival, his own sort of Shia community.
CROWLEY: (INAUDIBLE) –
REED: So the situation is, one, I think, you know, every military commander would have liked to see and I think the administration would like to see the continuation of troops but the Iraqi government wasn’t prepared to make the same guarantees that we felt were necessary. And the second dimension goes back to what I said previously. The combination of what we’re seeing today is not just simply the effectiveness of the — of the Iraqi military forces, it’s the political alienation of the Sunni community by Maliki. And that probably would have proceeded without — even if we had some troops on the ground.
CROWLEY: Do you fear now — and you did vote against the Iraq war, using force in Iraq — now Panetta and many others are saying, Iraq could become a safe haven for al Qaeda — for ISIS, much as Afghanistan was a safe haven for al Qaeda pre- 9/11.
Does that change your view on what the U.S. ought to do in Iraq now and in Syria against ISIS?
REED: I think the president’s plan is — it makes sense. We are using our superior air power, our intelligence, our ability to at the highest levels of command in Iraq to provide advice and assistance —
CROWLEY: But no troops on the ground. And you heard Senator Graham very forcefully —
REED: Well, there will be troops — there will be troops on the ground.
CROWLEY: No U.S. troops on the ground.
REED: There will be troops on the ground. There are over 200,000 Iraqi national security forces. There are Kurdish Peshmerga forces.
CROWLEY: But they won’t fight and they need retraining.
REED: That’s exactly what we’re in the process of doing right now.
And in fact, an effective Iraqi military force on the ground are probably — be much more effective than a short-term introduction of American forces. So, we have to —
CROWLEY: So Senator Reed is against U.S. forces in Iraq?
REED: I think the most effective way to use the best aspects of both countries is our superiority in the air, our ability for intelligence, for surveillance, for using that force and making sure — and getting the Iraqi forces up to speed so that they can conduct military operations on the ground. That’s what –
(CROSSTALK)
CROWLEY: It sounds like that is going to be like — we’re going to be in the air long before we’re going to see effective Iraqi troops on the ground.
REED: I think that’s absolutely true and I think that’s what General Allen has talked about. The president has appointed him as the sort of supervisor and I can’t think of a better choice, someone who knows the region, who fought in Iraq, who commanded in Afghanistan, and can begin to seriously directly rejuvenation, the restraining, however you want to describe it of Iraqi forces on the ground so that there is a ground component. There has to be a ground component militarily.
Air probably alone can’t win but when you take our superiority on the air and you put forces that will fight and we’re away from that point with the Iraqi forces but we have to get there, then you have the combination to be (ph) — to put the pressure on ISIL, move it back and eventually degrade it and destroy it.
CROWLEY: And finally, Senator, a political question for you. And that is, it is possible that you could become the minority party in the next session of Congress in the U.S. Senate. What effect do you think that will have on getting the job done with the Democratic White House and a Republican Congress?
REED: We’ll, we’re working awfully hard to maintain our position as the majority party.
A lot of what Senator Graham said in terms of issues that are common to both sides have to be developed. Sequestration has to be either eliminated or somehow postponed and that goes not just for some of the issues like the Department of Defense. That goes for every agency of the federal government. And people like Lindsey Graham who want to work on the issue, I want to work on it with him, those types of issues are going to have to be dealt with regardless of who is in charge.
CROWLEY: So, you don’t want it to happen but you could make it work?
REED: We’re going to be committed. I’m going to be committed as I have in the past to do what is best for the people of the United States and in particular the people of my own state of Rhode Island…
CROWLEY: Senator –
REED: …if I’m privileged to be elected.
CROWLEY: Thank you so much for…
REED: Thank you.
###END###