CNN "The Situation Room" - Transcript: National Security and Troops in Iraq

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BLITZER: Let's bring in Republican Senator Tom Cotton. He's an Iraq War veteran. He's member of the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees in the U.S. Senate.

Senator Cotton, thanks very much for coming in.

Several of the Republican presidential candidates are now openly saying, send in more U.S. troops, boots on the ground, if you will. You heard former New York Governor George Pataki. He's not formally a candidate, but he's expected to announce soon. Lindsey Graham was here in THE SITUATION ROOM the other day. He said 10,000. There are about 3,000 U.S. troops in Iraq right now. Bring that number up to 10,000, maybe that could help get the job done.

Are you with them on this?

SEN. TOM COTTON (R), ARKANSAS: I am, Wolf.

And I'm glad that you recognize that we do have boots on the ground already in Iraq. The president's put a cap at 3,000. That's an arbitrary cap. There's no military reason for it. But when some folks say that we shouldn't put boots on the ground right now, I think it demeans the service of those who are in Iraq.

But I wish the president would lift the cap and listen to the best judgment of his military commanders. We could use things like more special operations forces, forward air controllers, intelligence, and logistics experts to help fill some of the gaps in Iraqi capabilities and try to stop this war between Islamic State and the Iraqi population and the government of Iraq from descending into outright sectarian war of the kind of I saw in Iraq in 2006.

[18:10:15]

BLITZER: Because the U.S. when you were there, what, 100,000, 150,000 U.S. troops. How many troops do you think the U.S. needs now?

COTTON: Well, we wouldn't be looking at something like that. The president, I would say, poses a false choice with Iraq, just like he does with Iran, as we have discussed.

The choice is not between nothing and 150,000 heavy mechanized troops. I think on the order of a few thousand more. That's really a question though for our commanders to provide their best military judgment to the president to make a decision about the number and the types of troops we need. But there's no doubt that we need some of those specialized assets, whether they're special operations forces or intelligence experts, to help defeat the Islamic State.

That's the president's stated goal. He's not providing the resources to achieve it.

BLITZER: Because I'm sure you will agree the Iraqi military, military, whether Mosul or Ramadi, has been so disappointing. The fact that they now want to get these Iranian-backed Shiite militias to come in and help and try to recapture or at least contain ISIS in Ramadi, what does that say to you?

COTTON: Well, there's been a lot of disappointments with the Iraqi army, no doubt about that. Some units have performed well, especially their special operations units. But a lot of their units have not. I think it's a very bad idea

what the president and his administration is saying they support now, bringing in Iranian-back Shiite militias into the Sunni-dominated Anbar province, for two reasons.

One, I think there's no doubt that it will stoke more sectarian conflict, and, two, these militias are paper tigers. They have proven themselves incapable, for instance, of taking Tikrit. I don't think they're going to succeed. And they're going to stoke sectarian violence.

So, I think it's a bad idea. We need to be relying on more American advisers, more trainers, people who are assisting. We need to be working with the Sunni tribal leaders and tribes. Remember, these are the exact same people who turned in our direction in 2006, '07, and '08. We know who they are. We know who these tribes are.

A lot of the Army officers and Marine officers who were there on the ground with them are still on active duty today.

BLITZER: They don't trust the Iraqi military, which is largely Shia, right?

COTTON: Regrettably at this point, yes. There's been a lot of talk over the last two weeks about what we would have done in 2003 knowing what we know now.

I think what's even more tragic is Barack Obama, knowing what he knew then in 2011, made the decision to withdraw all of our troops. Those troops were a critical component to training the Iraqi army, to maintaining its pluralistic nature and preventing sectarian warfare from breaking out.

BLITZER: But you remember when President George W. Bush was president, he was the one who announced the deadline for getting all U.S. troops out of Iraq. And President Obama implemented what President Bush had originally put forward.

COTTON: Well, but there was an effort to pursue a new status of forces agreement that would give American troops immunity under President Obama.

The difference is, when that same dispute came up under George Bush's administration, the Bush administration was committed to making an agreement. Under the Obama administration, they were just committed to getting out of Iraq. And we see the wages of that now throughout Iraq and Syria.

BLITZER: You know White House officials say they tried with Nouri al-Maliki. He adamantly refused. He wouldn't give that status of forces agreement. He wouldn't give immunity to U.S. troops. As a result, all U.S. troops got out of there.

COTTON: I know they say that, but they said that throughout the Bush administration as well, and somehow the Bush administration always was able to achieve an agreement that gave our troops immunity and helped prevent exactly the kind of...

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: But as I'm sure you will agree, what is so frustrating, after all the blood and treasure, trillion dollars, whatever the U.S. spent, the training over a decade to get an Iraqi military capable, they're obviously not very capable right now.

COTTON: It absolutely is. And if we'd had troops there in 2011, we actually might have fewer troops there today than what the president has already put into Iraq or what we need to put into Iraq.

BLITZER: All right, stand by. We have much more to talk about, including what is going on, a little tension between the United States and China, what's going on in North Korea.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Much more with Senator Cotton right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:18:17]

BLITZER: We're back with senator, Iraq War veteran Tom Cotton.

We're following the breaking news on ISIS.

Senator, we just heard from Barbara Starr that the U.S. is now interrogating the woman -- the widow, I should say, of that slain ISIS commander. She's talking to U.S. interrogators. What can you tell us about this, if anything?

COTTON: Well, first off, JSOC is awesome. The raid they conducted into Syria over the weekend that killed Abu Sayyaf, who is a key leader of...

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: These are the Delta Force commanders, the ops -- special ops.

COTTON: Yes, killed Abu Sayyaf, who is a key leader of the Islamic State, and captured his wife, was an amazing operation.

It's a tactical success, but I would say it's in the middle of a strategic failure to stop the Islamic State. I don't want to comment anymore about his wife and the information we may or may not be getting from her, but JSOC is awesome.

BLITZER: Let's go through some other issues right now.

COTTON: Sure.

BLITZER: Your colleague Senator Rand Paul, who's a Republican presidential candidate, he's out there on the Senate floor. He really hates any extension of the so-called -- what's called the Patriot Act, which he says unconstitutionally eavesdrops on Americans' private conversations.

Where do you stand on this?

COTTON: Well, I respect and I like Rand and work well with him.

But I simply disagree with him here. What I believe is that a lot of the NSA's telephone metadata program is the result of misinformation spread by a traitor, Edward Snowden. The NSA is not listening to anyone's phone calls. They're not reading any Americans' e-mails. They're collecting simply the data that your phone company already has, and which you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, so they can search that data quickly in the event of a terrorist plot.

And there is no doubt that this program has stopped terrorist plots or helped investigate them. Furthermore, I don't think it poses any kind of legitimate risk to Americans' privacy. What you did do with your grocery card, discount card is much more invasive to your privacy than what the NSA does.

BLITZER: So, basically, you totally disagree with Senator Rand Paul on this?

[18:20:03]

COTTON: I firmly disagree.

The NSA's telephone metadata program is a critical tool that our national security professionals need to keep us safe, especially in the threat environment that we face today.

BLITZER: Republicans are the majority in the Senate. How do you think this is going to play out?

COTTON: We will see. We're in the middle of this debate,.

BLITZER: But there's a debate among Republicans too, and obviously with Democrats.

(CROSSTALK)

COTTON: The program expires along with a couple other important provisions that our national security professionals need to track terrorists and stop plots at the end of this month.

And that's why this debate is coming up now. And I'm firmly committed to trying to make sure that they have the tools they need to keep us safe.

BLITZER: North Korea, they claim Kim Jong-un's regime, that they can miniaturize these nuclear warheads now, potentially endangering the U.S. homeland. Is that true?

COTTON: Well, there's no doubt that they're working to miniaturize their warheads.

There's published reporting in the last couple of months saying that they have over 20 warheads. They're on the path to maybe 100. They have intercontinental missiles already. Those are going to be designed to strike U.S. territory and U.S. citizens. It just goes to show you what a dangerous path the president's going down in Iran, because what happened in North Korea, I believe, is foreshadowing what will happen in Iran.

BLITZER: Why do you say that? Because the president and the secretary of state, who negotiated this deal, it's not even a final deal yet. They have until the end of June to finalize it. They say this will stop Iran from building a nuclear bomb.

COTTON: Well, regrettably, that is what President Clinton said about his negotiated deal with North Korea in 1994. And it only took them 12 years to get nuclear weapons, which makes it much harder to confront the challenges of North Korea.

Iran is even more dangerous, though, because in addition to their nuclear programs, they're the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and they are spreading unrest throughout the Middle East, attacking our allies, and trying to topple governments.

BLITZER: Let's talk about Jim Sciutto, our chief national security correspondent's exclusive report. We had it here in THE SITUATION ROOM in the last hour. He's flying in one of these surveillance planes, a Poseidon, over these manmade islands that the Chinese are building, huge islands hundreds of miles off the Chinese coast, that you can see them.

We're showing our viewers some pictures. There are bases there, airstrips, control towers. The U.S. is very much opposed to this. What's your take on what's going on?

COTTON: Well, great reporting by CNN. And I support what President Obama and Secretary of Defense Ash Carter have done here.

China's claims have no legal basis at all. These manmade islands are hundreds of miles away from their coasts. These are international waters. And they're building these islands not only to develop helipads or even aircraft landing zones, so they can project power against our allies like the Philippines or Taiwan throughout the region. They're also building them to establish a claim to the territorial waters around it, many of which are rich in mineral rights.

So, just like China two years ago tried to establish an exclusive air zone in the East China Sea over some Japanese territory, and the United States military stood up to them then, the United States military needs to stand up to these claims now.

BLITZER: We heard the secretary of state, John Kerry, in every meeting he had in recent days with Chinese officials, from the president on down, he raised this issue. It is of such concern to the United States. You think he's right on this? COTTON: Yes, Secretary Kerry, Secretary Carter have been raising

these concerns. The U.S. military is trying to assert the primacy of free commerce over the open seas. We need to make sure that we stand with our allies in the region who have claims to these waters and these reefs as well. We can't let China bully them.

BLITZER: Senator Cotton, thanks very much for coming in.

COTTON: Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source