CNN "Newsroom" - Transcript: Islamic State Strategy

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

FOEMAN: Making up for the shortfalls will cost a fortune. The Pentagon already spends about $15 billion a year on its nukes, and officials say that will have to be increased by 10 as much as percent. And even then, it will take years to undo the damage -- Jim.

SCIUTTO: Big morale problems there, too. We want to go more in-depth on this and other topics. Joining me now, Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii. She served two combat tours herself in Iraq and serves now on the armed services and the foreign affairs committees.

Thanks very much for joining us.

REP. TULSI GABBARD (D), HAWAII: Thanks, Jim.

SCIUTTO: It's great to have you on. You listen to this, this is not just an isolated incident. It seems to be a culture of failure, inattention, morale, et cetera. How concerned are you about the danger, and is this a national security threat?

GABBARD: I'm deeply concerned, and this is a very dangerous situation that has to be a very high priority for us to fix. I think we can look back at administrations since the Cold War from both parties that should take responsibility for us being in this position, but especially looking at the last decade.

When we look at the trillions of dollars and spending money, unfortunately, sacrificing precious American lives in nation-building in Iraq and the Middle East and spending all of these resources there while neglecting very serious situations, such as this here at home.

So, we've got to make it a priority to fix it for the safety of the American people, but also as we look at Russia, Putin flexing his muscles. We've got to make sure that we have this nuclear deterrent in place.

SCIUTTO: Now they're talking about spending another $15 billion to solve the problems.

Please stay with us. We want to get into ISIS and Ukraine. Representative Tulsi Gabbard. We have a lot more to come after this short break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: We're back with Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii. She serves on the armed services and foreign affairs committees, and she also served two combat tours herself in Iraq. Fewer people can speak more knowledgeably on the issue of ISIS and the strategy.

General Dempsey in the hearings yesterday said that he is, in his words, certainly considering that U.S. forces accompany Iraqi forces on a particular mission he had in mind. You know, eventually, if Iraqi forces go to take back Mosul, a key city and a key stronghold for them.

You know, this is the sixth or seventh time where he has refused to take that option off the table, whereas the president has said repeatedly there will be no ground forces. Is the president being honest when he says he will not send ground troops to Iraq?

GABBARD: Well, I think, first of all, we've got to recognize, we have troops on the ground in Iraq right now.

SCIUTTO: How about combat? Be more specific, because that sounds like combat to me.

GABBARD: Look, they're armed, and I'm sure they're carrying ammunition. If fired upon, I'm sure they will return fire.

SCIUTTO: But it's more than that, because yes, they can defend themselves, but he was talking about sending them with Iraqi forces on what would be an offensive mission, going to take back ground and would put them, if they're -- you know, this is not being back in a command post in Baghdad. It would be on the front lines. That's combat, isn't it?

GABBARD: Yes, it is, absolutely. And I think that the American people can sense the dishonesty and the lack of clarity in exactly what our mission is there, which has been the problem from day one. You and I have talked about this before. Without a clear sense of mission, then we can't come up with a clear, effective, tactical strategy to defeat our enemy, the Islamic extremists that are ISIS.

I would not support and I do not support our troops, more American lives, going back into Iraq, going back into the Middle East, simply to prop up this still-dysfunctional central government of Iraq and to still prop up this nation-building mission that really has been a failure for so long.

SCIUTTO: Now, you said not just unclear, but dishonest. You're saying that the policy is dishonest?

GABBARD: We have troops on the ground there right now. And what's being proposed is putting American lives at risk in combat in the face of the enemy.

I think we've got to take a look at what we should be doing. We've got troops right now in Iraq in the Kurds, in the Peshmerga, who still, I questioned General Dempsey and the secretary yesterday -- will the arms and the funds that they're requesting from Congress go directly towards the Kurds who have been the trusted boots on the ground in this fight from the get-go? And I didn't really get an answer, but basically, they said no. They said, no.

These funds will continue to be funneled through the central Iraqi government, which is still being led by a Shia-led government when we have the sectarian divide and fighting still going on between the Shias, the Sunnis, and the Kurds. We can't go forward like that.

SCIUTTO: So much distrust there. The other issue you pressed on was this idea of, again, we're in a situation -- we, the U.S. and the military -- in training local forces, and basically, placing the success of the mission on the backs of local forces, whether Kurdish or Iraqi. Your comments yesterday, you said how can the U.S. be walking down the same path as a decade ago and hoping for a different outcome? Is the U.S., in your view, repeating a mistake with Iraqi forces?

GABBARD: That is what I -- that is what I am so afraid of. And it was -- as I sat in that hearing listening to those words, I did feel like I was in a time warp. And that's one of my greatest concerns, is that we do -- the United States does the same thing again, continuing down this failed mission of nation-building and propping up this Shia- led government and not focusing on what's in the best interests of the United States.

We have an enemy in these Islamic extremists who are a threat to the United States and the American people, and the strategy that's being conducted right now is not one that directly addresses that threat. Rather, it pulls more of our resources away from what we just talked about, from nuclear arms infrastructure concerns that have to be addressed here at home and elsewhere.

SCIUTTO: Because that's a fair question, because you -- the U.S. military had tens of thousands of troops in Iraq, hundreds of trainers, became a central part of the policy then, trained up before. So a quarter of a million...

GABBARD: Security forces, exactly. Now they're calling them the national guard.

SCIUTTO: Right.

GABBARD: And these are the troops that we're talking about who dropped the arms that we left behind...

SCIUTTO: And ran away.

GABBARD: ... and ran away. Why we would commit more U.S. dollars and potentially put more U.S. troops, putting their lives on the line to conduct this same mission makes no sense to me.

SCIUTTO: Well, it's interesting now. So that's Iraq. At least in Iraq you have a couple hundred thousand Iraqis, 100,000 or so, depending on how you count them, Kurdish Peshmerga.

Now, when you look to Syria, you know, in the best-case scenario, you're training up 5,000 to 15,000 rebels who are clearly, often out- matched on the battlefield by both ISIS, al-Nusra Front, Assad forces. I assume when you look at the Syria option, that looks even worse to you in terms of how that's going to work, training the local forces, as your ground troops.

GABBARD: It does. It does, because in the so-called Syrian moderate opposition forces, we don't have the trusted allies that we have in the Kurds in northern Iraq. What we see there is a group that we don't know who they will be fighting with or against.

If we had armed these moderate Sunni forces in the last year or the trusted allies that we have in the Kurds in northern Iraq. What we see there is a group that we don't know who they will be fighting with or against.

If we had armed these moderate Sunni forces in the last year or two years, as Secretary Clinton and others had advocated for...

SCIUTTO: They wouldn't be so far behind, is that your feeling?

GABBARD: We would have been arming what we see now today as ISIS. We saw just in the last week or ten days ago al-Nusra has switched sides and now are fighting with ISIS and overran one of these Sunni -- one of these Syrian moderate opposition elements, and they left behind the heavy weapons that the U.S. had been providing to them.

SCIUTTO: This is a concern that the shoulder-fired missiles...

GABBARD: Exactly.

SCIUTTO: ... that ISIS has now, known as MANPADs, that they might have come from what gulf states gave to some of these fighters, our allies, frankly.

I want to get to -- there's a big debate on the new authorization for this war. Even the president himself has said he wants to seek it, which presumes that he believes he needs it, that the war needs it. Does that mean that the war, as it's being run now, off this 2001 authorization dating back to 9/11, is illegal?

GABBARD: I think we do need a new authorization. I think it is a stretch to justify, especially using the 2002 Iraq AUMF to authorize the action, even that's taking place today, right now in Iraq. We can identify who our enemy is in al Qaeda, in ISIS.

SCIUTTO: But to be clear, we need a new authorization. What the president said, as well. But does that -- if we need it, does that presume that the war is illegal today without it?

GABBARD: It depends on what the mission is. If the mission is to fight against these Islamic extremists who are responsible for 9/11 -- al Qaeda, ISIS, whatever name they've morphed themselves into, whatever name they call themselves by -- there are actions that can be covered, in my view, by the 2001 AUMF.

But to also use what the president is using, the Iraq authorization, I think that the situation we're seeing today doesn't have any bearing to what was intended in 2002.

SCIUTTO: Can we get enough Democrats, can you get enough Democrats and Republicans to vote for a new authorization?

GABBARD: This depends on what it's going to say.

SCIUTTO: And major open questions including whether that authorization includes the provision of ground troops. A lot of open questions in that debate.

Thanks very much, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii. Iraq veteran. Great to have you on.

GABBARD: Good to see you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source