CNN "The Situation Room" - Transcript: Islamic State of Iraq and Syria

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BLITZER: We're tracking two big stories here in THE SITUATION ROOM. The breaking news: an American dies in Syria fighting for ISIS. That's the terror group.

And officials say President Obama gives the go-ahead for spy flights over Syria to gather intelligence on ISIS that may soon be used to actually launch U.S. air strikes.

Joining us now, Democratic Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, a key member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senator, thanks very much for joining us. I know you're well-plugged

in. Just give me a sense, this American citizen who joined ISIS dies over the weekend fighting for these ISIS terrorists. There's a picture of him, Douglas McArthur McCain. Do you have any idea how many other Americans may have gone into Syria and Iraq to fight for these terrorists?

SEN. JACK REED (D), RHODE ISLAND: I don't think -- I don't have a precise idea. I've heard several dozens. And then there are, of course, Europeans, many more Europeans. And they're another aspect of the complicated problem here, not so much ISIS itself but individuals who radicalize and then have American or European passports and don't fit the stereotype of a jihadist radical but then can come back into Europe or the United States. So it's another dimension of the problem we face in that region.

BLITZER: Do you believe ISIS represents a direct threat to the U.S. homeland?

REED: We have to look at it very critically to see if, in fact, it does represent such a threat. And at this juncture, that's one of the reasons why I believe the president is devoting intense intelligence efforts, as you indicated previously, beginning to surveil Syria itself, beginning to develop the kind of intelligence that will allow us to make a sound judgment about the intention and the capabilities.

That's something I think we have to assume, frankly, the worst and then to work to see what, in fact, on the ground they're capable of doing and what they will do.

BLITZER: Should the U.S. launch air strikes against ISIS targets inside Syria just as the U.S. is doing against ISIS targets in Iraq right now?

REED: If the president feels that there is a direct imminent threat to the United States and to our interests, the same rationale he used with respect to the defending the legation of Erbil, then I think he has that authority.

But once again, using these overflights beginning to develop very comprehensive intelligence is a way to make an assessment of the capacity and the capability and the intentions of ISIS. But short of an immediate direct threat to the United States, I think his preference would be to use every and all means short of that.

Regional partnerships, trying to develop an effective resistance within Syria to both the Assad regime and to ISIS, all of these things together. And as he said, this is going to be not a short one- or two-shot affair. This is going to be over many, many months if not years.

BLITZER: Should the president seek congressional authorization before ordering air strikes against ISIS targets in Syria?

REED: Well, again, it goes back to the immediate threat to the United States. If there is an immediate threat, then he has, I think, under his powers as the commander in chief, the ability to conduct an attack and then, under the War Powers Act, notify Congress. He's been doing that with respect to the operations in Iraq. If it's a situation where he feels that this requires a long-term intense operation, then again, that's another issue. And at that point, a congressional debate and congressional support, I think, would be very useful and very critical.

BLITZER: Here's what the president said almost exactly one year ago to the day about going, launching air strikes against targets in Syria. Listen to the president back in August of 2013.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective. We should have this debate. Because the issues are too big for business as usual.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Do you agree that what the president said then should still stand a year later?

REED: Well, again, if there is an immediate threat to the United States then he has to act. That's his constitutional obligation.

But if this is a longer term, more complicated comprehensive approach, then as you said back then, the debate issues -- well, not only the debate. Having the support of Congress on a bipartisan basis -- that's the only way you can get something through Congress -- would be very much more effective than a singular action by the executive.

BLITZER: Would he get that? Let's say he went this week to the United States Congress and asked for a vote in the House of Representatives and the Senate to authorize U.S. air strikes against ISIS targets in Syria, claiming this is -- ISIS represents a threat to the U.S. homeland, to U.S. national security. Would he get a vote of approval? Would he get a majority in both chambers?

REED: Well, that's where this whole process of developing the intelligence, developing the profile, specifically identifying the capabilities of ISIS, is so critical, because without the facts, without the good analysis, I don't think that you could get that kind of automatic instantaneous reflexive support.

And the president would have to make the case and make it compellingly that this represents the only alternative that we have in the face of a very grave and serious threat.

He's beginning to develop the analysis. I don't think he's made a decision about the course of action, but he's made the first step and the right step, was let's get all the facts we have so that we can make the case and make the case accurately. One of the problems, and you mentioned it before, talking to Mark

Kimmitt and Peter Bergen, is that in 2002 and 2003, the information was sketchy, and it turned out in many cases to be not only inconclusive but erroneous. We can't do that again.

BLITZER: Would you support arming the so-called moderate Syrian opposition forces, the rebels? The president said today he wants to strengthen them. But would you support providing them with sophisticated U.S. weaponry?

REED: We are in the process of following up the president's request for resources, money to provide support to these groups within Syria. I think the more so than simply arming them is training them or helping them to be a cohesive effective group. That's just as much, in fact, in many cases it's more important than having the weapons.

We saw an example of Iraq where they had plenty of weapons. They just didn't have a cohesive chain of command, and they weren't willing and able to fight.

So this combination of both training and also weapons that, as one of the previous speakers suggested, can be monitored and controlled is an appropriate, I think, to begin to help resolve the situation in Syria.

BLITZER: Because there's great fear, as you know, that just as so many of the tanks, armored personnel carriers, sophisticated weapons the U.S. left behind for the Iraqi military use was abandoned by the Iraqi military. Now in the possession of these ISIS terrorists in Iraq.

There's great concern that if the U.S. were to provide weapons to these moderate Syrian forces, those weapons could wind up in the hands of ISIS, as well. And you know that concern exists.

Senator Reed, thanks very much for joining us.

REED: Thanks, Wolf.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source