tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC August 7, 2014 6:00pm-7:01pm PDT
supplies in iraq. officials tell nbc news the military has not carried out air strikes in iraq but the military is standing ready to defend u.s. personnel and resources if necessary. that is our show. "all in" for this evening. "the rachel maddow show" starts now with steve kornacki sitting in. good evening, steve. good evening, ari. thanks for that. thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. rachel has the night off. we're continuing to cover the breaking news tonight as at this hour, the united states is weighing taking military action in iraq again. throughout the day today, president obama met with his national security team to consider authorizing american air strikes in iraq to protect iraqi citizens, civilians trapped by islamic militants in the northwestern part of that country. for context into how the united states has found itself in this position, it's found itself once again considering a military operation in iraq tonight. it's helpful to two back six months to february, february of this year. it was in february of this year that serious fracturing among terrorist groups spilled into
public view. al qaeda released a statement di disavowing any connection with a group called the islamic state of iraq in syria, more commonly known as isis. isis is not a branch of al qaeda. isis does not have an organizational relationship with al qaeda. perhaps more most importantly the al qaeda statement made it clear. al qaeda is not responsible for the actions isis takes. al qaeda and isis were once united. before this, isis, they fought together side by side in syria against the rule regime. islamist state of iraq and syria began ignoring al qaeda leaders as they aggressively expanded across large swaths of eastern syria, into the border with iraq. isis took over city after city, took control of a border crossing between syria and iraq. they moved quickly. they moved brutally. and it was in part the group's extreme brutality that eventually alienated even al
qaeda. their indiscriminate public killings and torture led al qaeda to fight against isis in syria. alongside more moderate elements of the syrian opposition. al qaeda deemed isis too brutal to be associated with. that was back in february. since then, isis has lived up to that designation and more than lived up to it. isis' goal is to create their own islamic state. what they want to call a caliphate governed by their own extremist brand of islam. the territory would include all of syria, large swaths of iraq. in recent months, isis has been swift and merciless and also successful on their way to achieving that vision. isis captured cities spanning from nor northwestern sere yoo and northeastern iraq. they took fallujah in central iraq. that development had a unique significance for the united states not because fallujah is one of iraq's largest cities, 40 miles from its capital of baghdad, but because fallujah
was the site of one of the most hard fought and deadliest battles for u.s. troops during the iraq war. isis captured oil fields in both syria and iraq which they've used to fund their operations. they have reportedly captured saddam hussein's hometown of tikrit, bragged online that they staged a mass execution there. but perhaps one of their most valuable gains so far has been iraq's second largest city, mosul. mosul, the iraqi military tried and failed to fend off isis. and after a two-day battle, isis won control of the city. which was notable not just because of mosul's size, but also because of its location in a strategic spot that links iraq and turkey and syria. and tonight, it is the plight of the city called sinjar in iraq, located roughly 80 miles west of mosul. it's the plight of that city that is causing the united states to weigh re-engaging militarily in iraq. over the weekend as isis continued their brutal land grab in iraq, they seized the city of
sinjar, home to an ethnic and minority group. the people are not muslims. they practice a religion derived from chrisianity. isis vowed to kill them unless they renounced their religion. they fled. some of them into the mountains surrounding their town. now they're stuck in those mountains. stuck there with no food and no water. they are surrounded by isis forces which have vowed to kill them if they try to return home from the mountain. it's estimated that 40,000 people, most of them women and children, are stranded in that mountainside right now dying of dehydration, of hunger, unable to flee or look for water because isis will kill them if they descend. several children have already died in the mountains. there are tens of thousands more trapped there in dire need of food and water. their plight led to this moment today. united states debating military action in iraq. back in march of 2011, president
obama authorized u.s. military intervention in the civil war in libya. he authorized american air strike s against libyan leader moammar gadhafi. he made a humanitarian case for that military intervention. here's how he explained it back then. >> the united states and the world faced a choice. gadhafi declared he would show no mercy to his own people. he compared them to rats and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. in the past, we had seen him hang civilians in the streets and kill over 1,000 people in a single day. now we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. we knew that if we wanted -- if we waited one more day, benghazi, a city nearly the size of charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region
and stained the conscience of the world. it was not in our national interest to let that happen. i refused to let that happen. and so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of congress, i authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce u.n. security council resolution 1973. >> isis' current stranglehold in iraq is also a humanitarian crisis. isis has targeted and ckilled nt civilians. it's trapped and vowed to kill tens of thousands more of them. those civilians are trapped right now in desperate need of food and water. so tonight, the united states once again faces the question. will we intervene? will we use american military power in iraq to try to stop what seems like it could be an impending ethnic genocide? this hour, we know that there is
an operation under way to air drop supplies to those trapped people in sinjar, iraq. that is in part a u.s. military operation to get those supplies to those people. we are also still awaiting word of a decision by the white house on air strikes. on whether we are on the verge of an american military intervention in iraq once more. joining us now is nbc news chief pentagon correspondent jim miklashevski. jim, thanks for taking the time tonight. maybe you can start by explaining something i think has confused me -- >> if i can interrupt you for a second, we've got some news here. >> go right ahead. >> u.s. military officials have told nbc news that those humanitarian air drops have been completed over the sinjar mountains where up to 40,000 of these members of that small religious sect had to flee from sinjar from the isis rebels. now, according to officials, there were c-17s used for those air drops that were escorted by
american f-16 fighter jets. the tdrops, it's not clear just how long they took, but now we're told that those air drops of food, water, medical supplies, humanitarian relief, to those iraqis on the ground there, have, in fact -- has, in fact, been completed successfully and all u.s. planes are now out of that specific airspace, steve. >> okay. thanks. that's important information. and i think it leads to the next question which is what we're hearing today about the possibility, now you're saying the successful completion apparently of this humanitarian portion -- >> i would say this phase of it. >> phase. >> i mean, because who knows how long they're going to be stuck up on that mountain, and at this point, unless -- unless isis rebels actually move in and physically threaten those
ysidis, those taking refuge on top of the mountain, then u.s. military air strikes against that group of isis is highly unlikely. so it may be a situation unless they find some way, some kind of relief valve to escape their situation on top of the mountain that additional relief operations may be required in the future. >> yeah, well that's one thing that's confused me today because we're talking about the potential for u.s. air strikes here. would the u.s. air strikes only be about liberating those, the trapped from that mountain, or would it also be what we're hearing reports potentially of isis moving closer to the capital region of the kurdish region of iraq? would it also be -- air strikes potentially be aimed at doing that as well? what specifically are we talking about here with the goal of air strikes, potentially? >> well, it's interesting because in terms of u.s. military air operations over iraq, the white house today very strongly emphasized the
humanitarian missions. we're told that was pretty much the goal of the president when they started out putting these plans together. it was an emphasis on the humanitarian mission with a backup combat mission if those refugees were threatened. but at the same time, now, we find isis fighters poised on the border of that capital city, irbil, 1.5 million people in the city. but more importantly, not only is it a part of a larger u.s. strategy in trying to stitch together some kind of government in that part of the -- stable government in that part of iraq, but it also contains a u.s. consulate with some 30 to 50 state department workers. there are some 40 american military advisers there working with iraqis. so, they do have somewhat of a stake and somewhat of a reason to issue a veiled warning to the
isis rebels that is if you advance on the city of irbil, itself, you will be subject to u.s. air strikes. but i can tell you, steven, ultimately nobody in the white house, nobody in the pentagon, wants to get involved in a shooting war with isil. they realize with the first bomb drop the u.s. is not quite but almost all in. and one of the major concerns is that they don't want to become caught right in the middle of a sectarian war. they don't want to be seen as the baghdad's private air force attacking isis. they'd like to do whatever they can to restrict isis' ability to further its gains, to move about the country freely, potentially attack baghdad. but the last thing the u.s. wants to is get caught in the middle of that war. >> all right. nbc news pentagon correspondent jim miklashevski.
thanks for your time tonight. really appreciate that. we should let you know, we are receiving word right now that president obama is preparing to address the nation at 9:30 eastern time. just about 20 minutes from now from the state dining room. he'll be addressing the nation on the subject of iraq. we'll obviously have full coverage of his statement when that comes, expected 9:30 tonight eastern time. let's bring in nbc news chief foreign affairs correspondent, andrea mitchell. really appreciate you taking the time tonight. so i guess the first thing i want to start on is this point that jim was raising, this might be the first of many, or at least several humanitarian missions because these are people who are trapped in a mountain, they feel if they come down, isis wants to kill them. and it strikes me, it raises a more simple question here of how do you get isis out from away of the bottom of the mountain, from the town they've taken over? is that a job ultimately for the iraqi army? is that a job ultimately for the united states? >> as mik was saying, the last thing this president wants to is
get involved in clearing the isis members out from where they are and circling these trapped yisitis. this is a humanitarian crisis primarily initially. i think it is conceivable that certainly if any american airlift operation, any of those planes were fired upon, they would be fired back. and if there were an attack on irbil as mik was saying, all our people there, the consulate, our military advisers, irbil is a key part of the iraqi solution, according to diplomatic officials. i was there with john kerry just a number of weeks ago, and he was very keen to be supporting the kurdish leaders there. but holding them from creating their own country, keeping them as part of a united iraq, is a very fragile but important goal right now. and interestingly, just today, there was some focus on the diplomatic front at getting a solution to a new government.
getting an alternative, a shiite alternative to maliki. something that they've been trying to do for weeks and weeks. so, as they were moving on this front, the humanitarian crisis evolved. there is no way to get those isis fighters out without getting engaged militarily. and it is conceivable that you would have turkish or jordanian or kurdish forces joined with iraqi forces but right now there is very little confidence that iraqi air force personnel could do this job. >> you mentioned you were in irbil recently and talking about the significance of irbil in iraq. the areas isis has taken so far, basically sunni areas, sunni movement taking sunni areas and significant of irbil being you're moving into kurdish territory. mosul, the largest city they've taken. irbil, you'd be taking kurdish territory. we feel the hesitancy of the obama administration to get involved in any way militarily in iraq again. but at the same time, what is
the calculation, what do you suspect the calculation is in the white house when it comes to protecting a city like erbil? >> erbil has to be protected. it is an economic force. it is oil wealthy. it is very, very well developed. it is a hub of commerce. it is the future of the kurds. the kurds have been the most loyal allies of the united states. we have facilities there. we have military advisers, as i say. we have a consulate. there's no question that the us would be involved in some fashion to try to protect erbil. other big question now is mosul and the capture that's been reported of the big dam that saddam built in mosul. if that dam is blown up by isis as a way of flooding out the shiite cities to the south and even affecting baghdad, that would be another crisis. so isis was blocked from taking baghdad. they began to lose steam. they then took the opportunity to move north and to move west
and now they are controlling this territory, and they are attacking and ravaging these minority communities. and it is -- it is a criminal operation, but it is beyond any description, what has been described by people who are up there, by bobby goshe who knows the area so well, talking to him earlier here on msnbc. it is a destruction of mosques, of artifacts, of sculptures, but most importantly, of people. these communities are being devastated. men are being killed. women are being attacked and kidnapped as plunder. children are being murdered. >> to do we know, this, andrea, sounds like a basic question, so forgive me. what is preventing isis -- if isis has an aim of killing the yisiti, what is preventing them from going into the mountains and doing it if they know tens of thousands of them are up there? why aren't they doing that? >> there are logistical problems. they don't -- that's a very good question.
i don't know the topography well enough to know why they are not climbing up after these people who have retreated because these are largely unarmed people and women and children. so you've got thousands and thousands of people who need to be rescued and long term, and it seems from briefings that have been done by the white house to the hill tonight, because under various notification rules and protocols, the leadership of the hill and other committee members have been notified. this is going to be a long-term engagement. this is not a quick operation. >> and just one final question on erbil. we were talking, again, about the significance of it, to iraq and to sort of the entire, you know, enterprise over there. but i wonder, do you have a sense in terms of how imminent the threat is of isis making a move on the city of erbil? >> that's another good question. we don't. and we need better ground information from what is going on there. but i don't know how imminent that is. i don't know how close they are to erbil.
but if they were very close, you would see an evacuation of the american team certainly. but you've got oil pipelines, you've got the wealth of iraq at stake when you're talking about any attempt to capture this kurdish area. >> nbc news chief foreign affairs correspondent andrea mitchell. thank you very much. again, we're now awaiting a live address to the nation from president obama. he's expected to speak from the state dining room at the white house. that's at 9:30 eastern time. just over ten minutes from now. stay with us. be right back.
you're looking at live pictures from the white house. this is the state dining room where we expect president obama to address the nation from just moments from now. stay with us. e're all set? yyyup. with xfinity internet your family can use all their devices at once. works anywhere in the house. even in the garage. max what's going on? we're doing a tech startup. we're streamlining an algorithm. we're going public! [cheering] the fastest in-home wifi
for your entire family. the x-1 entertainment operating system. only from xfinity. so factors like diet can negatively impact good bacteria? even if you're healthy and active. phillips digestive health support is a duo-probiotic that helps supplement good bacteria found in two parts of your digestive tract. i'm doubly impressed! phillips' digestive health. a daily probiotic.
today news broke that sunni militants captured the largest dam in iraq, potentially devastating development for iraqi civilians. right now nbc news reports the white house has completed this phase of the humanitarian mission and is bag weighing military strikes, what jim miklashevski reported at the top of the show. one of the many factors going into the president's decision was the u.s. citizens' well documented war fatigue. all this comes as support for military action is at historic lows among american people. now let's bring in jeff mason, white house correspondent for "reuters." jeff, we're about ten minutes away apparently from hearing from the president. do you have any sense what we can expect him to say to the nation tonight? >> steve, he'll start by talking about what just happened. this humanitarian mission has been accomplished. that u.s. planes were involved in dropping off meals and dropping off water and dropping
off medicine to the tens of thousands of religious minorities who have been displaced by isis. he'll talk about why that was important. and then he'll talk about what the united states' interest is in being in iraq right now. i think the fact that that setting is the state dining room of the white house means he's not going to take any questions. that means journalists won't have a chance to press him as to whether the next option or next operation will be a military strike, so i suspect he will not talk about military strikes, but he will -- if he does, it will echo what josh ernest, the white house spokesperson, said earlier today, was that any military operation by the united states in iraq would be limited in scope and there is not a role for boots on the ground, that this is not a time for the united states to get back into a major war. >> do we -- no boots on the ground, obviously the suggestion there is air strikes. when they say limited in scope, that seems so nebulous, i guess. do we have a sense -- do you have any sense in particular
what they might have in mind potentially when it comes to military involvement? >> i think it's purposely nebulous. i thing thth think they don't w define what that means. what they want to do, taking into account the polls you referred to at the beginning of this segment, is reassure americans we're not starting another war. but they want to leave the option open to do some significant military strikes that would stop the advance of this group, of isis, or at least curb the advance that they have successfully done so far. >> and do you have any sense -- i mean, you know, we went into iraq in the first place now over ten years ago. of course, there was a congressional debate, a congressional vote on that. how much latitude the white house has here to act without congress' authorization? >> well, i think -- it was interesting what andrea already mentioned that there have been communications between the white house and congress about this. clearly they don't want to run into the situation that they have with the operation to extract bowe bergdahl from
afghanistan, recently being criticized for not talking to congress. in terms of latitude, i think that's something that we'll have to explore the next coming days. certainly the white house wants to keep its options opened. but, again, as we said before, they're not looking for latitude from congress to start a major war. there's no appetite among the american people, and really among either party for that. that said, you may start seeing some more criticism of the president from republicans in the coming days about the fact that this situation in iraq has deteriorated so much and they'll find a reason to blame the president for that largely because of that troop pullout in 2011 which was such a big part of the president's campaign promise in 2008. >> yeah, i'm curious what you make of that. we've heard that rhetoric before, certainly, republicans especially in the last six months or so pointing back to 2011 saying that wasn't handled the right way, that was the president too hastily trying to get headlines about getting out of iraq.
do you sense any connection between that decision back then and where we are right now? >> well, i think there are two sides to that. certainly republicans will say -- many republicans will say the obama administration should have worked harder to agree a deal with the iraqi government to keep some u.s. troops in iraq. the obama administration will say, hey, we tried and the iraqi government did not agree to provide immunity to u.s. troops and we're not going to leave them there as a result of that. again, going back to the core political argument that barack obama made as a candidate in 2007 and 2008, was to extract the united states from iraq. and he feels like that was something, a promise he has kept in 2011 which makes it all the more ironic now that as president, he's facing the possibility of further u.s. military involvement in that country. >> all right. jeff mason, white house correspondent for "reuters." thanks for your time tonight. appreciate that. joining us now, steve clemens, foreign policy expert, msnbc contributor as well. steve, thanks for being here.
i'll start with this question. i mean, we've been talking about -- there's a couple different issues here. there's the yisiti on this mountain now with their lives in danger. there's also the question of the city of erbil, sort of the capital region of the kurdish area of iraq where apparently isis is about 40 miles away right now. we had andrea mitchell on in the last segment saying she's not sure how imminent the isis threat is to erbil, but as a bottom-line issue, erbil cannot fall. i wonder from your standpoint looking at this, we have the white house now saying limited in scope, no boots on the ground. at what point, though, does that thinking sort of interact with this reality of erbil being such a significant city? >> well, it's shifting now. we're going to learn a bit more in a few minutes. not necessarily toward armed strikes. though i tell you the white house and department of defense and others have been so buttoned up, we don't know what they're about to do. andrea is right. erbil would be a big game changer. we are really close with ke kurdistan.
big investment in trying to make kurdistan both play along with the baghdad government but also secure itself. we've given them lots of support to help the peshmer fwrga. i received word the president is going to announce more aid to iraq. i don't know what form that aid will be. he will say while he doesn't want to get bogged down further in iraq, it's important to stand by these people. the department of defense just confirmed th confirmed they've made the air drop and the first wave of mission has happened. so, there is stuff tilting forward, and, you know, it makes one wonder how if this is a libya-like or benghazi-like situation with a mountain that is encircled by isis troops, we wouldn't do more, but the president is trying to make sure that we don't have a slippery slope that takes us deeper into the middle of a civil war. >> yes. i'm curious what you think the calculation, the strategy might be there. you talk about we have the mountain, we have apparently a completed humanitarian mission
right now and basically until and unless isis leaves from the bottom of this mountain, it seems like you'll have to have perpetual humantarian missions to keep the people alive until it's safe to come down from the mountain. is this a move on the united states' part to buy time for the iraqi government to be in a better position to deal with this or some other end game here? >> i thank are buying time, but i also think we're trying to figure out ways to turbocharge the iraqi military to be more active. we'll be puppeteers behind the scene and ramp that up as fast as we can. >> all right. steve clemens, msnbc foreign policy analyst. thanks so much for your time tonight. joining us now, kristen welker, nbc news' white house correspondent. any minute now we're hearing from the president. what's the latest there? >> reporter: steve, i can tell you president obama has been in meetings really throughout the day starting early this morning in the situation with his national security team trying to weigh his options in terms of how to deal with this humanitarian crisis. and as we have now reported, the
decision was made to move forward with those air drops delivering humanitarian aid in the form of food and water. and part of the reason why this announcement is coming after the fact is because this was such a dicey mission. it's a slippery slope. they wanted to make sure that this went off without a hitch. here comes president obama. back to you. >> good evening. today i authorized two operations in iraq. targeted air strikes to protect our american personnel, and a humanitarian effort to help save thousands of iraqi civilians who are trapped on a mountain without food and water and facing almost certain death. let me explain the actions we're taking and why. first, i said in june as the terrorist group isil began an advance across iraq that the united states would be prepared
to take targeted military action in iraq if and when we determined that the situation required it. in recent days, these terrorists have continued to move across iraq and have neared the city of erbil where american diplomats and civilians serve at our consulate and american military personnel advise iraqi forces. to stop the advance on erbil, i've directed our military to take targeted strikes against isil terrorists convoys should they move toward the city. we intend to stay vigilant and take action if these terrorist forces threaten our personnel or facilities anywhere in iraq. including our consulate in erbil and our embassy in baghdad. we're also providing urgenct assistance to iraqi government and kurdish forces so they can more effectively wage the fight against isil. second, at the request of the iraqi government, we've begun operations to help save iraqi civilians stranded on the
mountain. as isil has marched across iraq, it has waged a ruthless campaign against innocent iraqis, and these terrorists have been especially barbaric toward religious minorities including christian and ysitis, a small and ancient religious sect. countless iraqis have been displaced and chilling reports describe isil militants rounding up families, conducting mass executions, and enslaving women. in recent days, ysiti women, men, and children from the area of sinjar have fled for their lives and thousands, perhaps tens of thousands are now hiding high up on the mountain with little bit the clothe on their backs. they're without food, they're without water. people are starving. and children are dying after thirst. meanwhile, isil forces below have called for the systemic destruction of the entire yeziti people which would constitute
genocide. these innocent families are faced with horrible choice. descend the mountain, be slaughtered, or stay and slyly die of thirst or hunger. i said before the united states cannot and should not intervene every time there's a crisis in the world. let me be clear about why we must act and act now. when we face a situation like we do on that mownuntain, innocent people facing the prospect of violence on a horrific scale, when we have a mandate to help, in this case a request from the iraqi government, and when we have the unique capabilities to help avert a massacre, then i believe the united states of america cannot turn a blind eye. we can act carefully and responsibly to prevent a potential act of genocide. that's what we're doing on that mountain. i, therefore, authorized targeted air strikes if necessary to help forces in iraq as they fight to break the siege of mt. sinjar and protect the civilians trapped there.
already american aircraft have begun conducting humanitarian air drops of food and water to help these desperate men, women, and children survive. earlier this week one iraqi in the area cried to the world, there is no one coming to help. well, today america is coming to help. we're also consulting with other countries and the united nations who have called for action to address this humanitarian crisis. i know that many of you are rightly concerned about any american military action in iraq, even limited strikes like these. i understand that. i ran for this office in part to end our war in iraq and welcome our troops home, and that's what we've done. as commander in chief, i will not allow the united states to be dragged into fighting another war in iraq. and so even as we support iraqis as they take the fight to these terrorists, american combat troops will not be returning to fight in iraq. because there is no american military solution to the larger
crisis in iraq. the only lasting solution is reconciliation among iraqi communities and stronger iraqi security forces. however, we can and should support moderate forces who can bring stability to iraq. so even as we carry out these two missions, we will on the to pursue a broader strategy that empowers iraqis to confront this crisis. iraqi leaders need to come together and forge a new government that represents the legitimate interests of all iraqis and that can fight back against the threats like isil. iraqis have named a new president, a new speaker of parliament, and are seeking consensus on a new prime minister. this is the progress that needs to continue in order to reverse the momentum of the terrorists who prey on iraq's divisions. once iraq has a new government, the united states will work with it and other countries in the region to provide increased support to deal with this humanitarian crisis and
counterterrorism challenge. none of iraq's neighbors have an interest in this terrible suffering or instability. and so we'll continue to work with our friends and allies to help refugees get the shelter and food and water they so desperately need and help iraqis push back against isil. the several hundred american advisers that i ordered to iraq will continue to assess what more we can do to help train, advise, and support iraqi forces going forward. and just as i consulted congress on the decisions i made today, we will continue to do so going forward. my fellow americans, the world is confronted by many challenges, and while america has never been able to right every wrong, america has made the world a more secure and prosperous place. and our leadership is necessary to underwrite the global security and prosperity that our children and our grandchildren will depend on. we do so by adhering to a set of core principles. we do whatever is necessary to
protect our people. we support our allies when they're in danger. we lead coalitions of countries to uphold international norms and strive to stay true to the fundamental values, the desire to live with basic freedom and dignity, that is common to human beings wherever they are. that's why people all over the world look to the united states of america to lead. and that's why we do. so let me close by assuring you that there is no decision that i take more seriously than the use of military force. over the last several years, we have brought the vast majority of our troops home from iraq and afghanistan, and i have been careful to resist calls to turn time and again to our military because america has other tools in our arsenal than our military. we can also lead with the power of our diplomacy, our economy, and our ideals. but when the lives of american citizens are at risk, we will
take action. that's my responsibility as commander in chief. when many thousands of innocent civilians are faced with the danger of being wiped out, and we have the capacity to do something about it, we will take action. that is our responsibility as americans. that's a hallmark of american leadership. that's who we are. so tonight we give thanks to our men and women in uniform, especially our brave pilots and crews over iraq, who are protecting our fellow americans and saving the lives of so many men, women, and children that they will never meet. they represent american leadership at its best. as a nation, we should be proud of them and of our country's enduring commitment to uphold our own security and the dignity of our fellow human beings. god bless our armed forces, and god bless the united states of america. >> all right. we just heard from president obama. the president saying that he has authorized targeted u.s. military strikes in iraq to
protect american interests. kristen welker is back at the white house for us. kristen, you just heard that. take us through what you made of the statement from the president. sounded like two different things. humanitarian drops which we knew about. he's talking about air strikes and seem to be saying only if necessary. sort of a contingency on the air strikes. take us through what you heard. >> reporter: i think that's right. that's the major headline. we knew he was going to come out and announce the humanitarian aid had been dropped in the form of food and water, but the real headline here in addition to that is the fact that the president announced that he had authorized military air strikes if it is deemed necessary. so that is a contingency, and he said it depends on a few things. one, if this administration believes that the extremist forces are moving into the city of erbil, of course, the united states has a consulate there. and number two, if it is deemed necessary to break the siege if those 40,000 religious
minorities cannot come down from that mountain, if they are essentially trapped. if they continue to be trapped, if the only way to get them off of that mountain is to authorize military strikes, the president tonight saying that he is prepared to do that. we know that military aircraft is at the ready should the president signal the green light. one other headline that i would point out, the fact that you heard the president use the term "genocide." he said he came to this conclusion because he wanted to prevent a potential genocide. prevent something like we saw in rwanda. so that frames the thinking here behind the scenes tonight. we know that the president has been in meetings throughout the day as he's been trying to determine exactly what actions to take here. you also heard the president reiterate something that we've heard consistently from this administration which is that the iraqi government needs to be more inclusive. they have been calling on prime minister nuri al maliki to create a more inclusive government for months now as they've been tracking this escalating crisis in iraq. so, again, tonight you heard
president obama say that. and reiterate that there are not going to be u.s. boots on the ground. again, as he said, he ran on a platform of withdrawing from iraq. so in an attempt to stay true to that, he has authorized the possibility of air strikes, but, again, no american boots on the ground. back to you. >> all right. kristen welker, nbc news' white house correspondent joining us tonight. appreciate the coverage there. joining us now, paul rieckhoff, founder and executive director of the iraq and afghanistan veterans of america. paul, thanks for being here tonight. >> thanks, steve. >> a lot there in obviously what the president just said. as kristen was taking us through the issue of air strikes. the president saying it's a contingency, if he deems it necessary to free the yezidi people from the mountains, he might do it then. if isis makes a move toward the city of erbil, he might make it then. contingencies. he made a point of saying, "i will not allow the united states to be dragged into fighting another war in iraq."
that's the first thing everybody is obviously thinking about in this country right now. when you look at that, the situation in erbil, specifically, if isis forces were to start moving on erbil, apparently they're only 40 miles away right now. are you confident air strikes could take care of that? >> i have no idea. most of us have no idea. the president is in a unique position to have a source of information we don't know about. it's obviously a very dynamic situation, as combat often is. for our community, we're always pinned to, does this mean boots on the ground, more troops in iraq? our community is always concerned about whether our brothers and sisters are going to get phone calls. and that's been a very, very tough time for us over the last few years watching this situation unfold in iraq. we've shed blood there, lost friends there. we still have iraqi friends there that we're concerned about. i think it's a very trying time for our military. if there's one thing we can underscore is the heroism and bravery of the pilots, people on the ground. there are a small number of military folks there. and the folks who continue to fight and die in afghanistan every day. >> given your unique
perspective, he made a specific point of saying he's said in the past the u.s. can't intervene militarily in every situation around the world. so many situations in the world you can look at and say if only we put the united states military power behind us, we could do something positive. he's saying this one, though, passes that test. he invoked, as kristen said, he invoked the term, genocide. listening to him, knowing what you know about the situation over there, do you agree in a basic level, the situation he described tonight does warrant some sort of u.s. intervention? >> sounds like it. what kind of intervention, we don't know. it's clear now that they've dropped food and water. thousands of gallons of water and thousands of mres to people whose lives may depend on. if the u.s. can do that safely, it's our obligation to do that. what happens beyond that, we don't know. there's obviously tremendous war fatigue in this country in the civilian population, also in the military. what is the plan, what maps next, what's it going to look like in six months or a year? frankly, most of american has turned their eyes away from iraq as it continued to spiral downward over the last couple years. veterans are watching. we know how this has gone south, how bad isis is and could
potentially bleed over into our personal lives aversely affected by ten years of war. >> he went out of his way to say, this was a request made to him by the iraqi government. i wonder wa you make of that. i guess there's two different ways o lo s of looking at that. it contributes to the sense of urgency around this. taking place in iraq, the government of iraq saying to the united states, we can't handle this, we need your help. if you want this to stop, you're going to have to help us. there's a sense of urgency there. the other side of that, i guess, though, the purpose of iraq war in part. the purpose of the reconstruction effort after going in was iraq would be able to handle situations like this on its own. we're in the middle of 2014 and they're turning to us for help. >> it's a total mess. those who have been on the ground know it. whether in 2003 or there now, it's a complete mess. i think we have to look forward. i think the question that i and most american troops often ask, is it only going to be us? is the rest of the world going to stand by and let this happen as well? we can't do it alone and can't be only a military solution.
the economic pieces wr s weren' police. i hope after many years of war america understands you can't solve everything with military, gun and bombs. it's much more complicated and in-depth and may take a long time. >> timetable is something people are thinking about a lot right now. again, the issue here of military -- of air strikes is an issue of he's saying it's a contingency. when you look at the situation at the mountain there with the yezidi people, tens of thousands in the mountain right now, it does seem like, look, we completed apparently a humanitarian mission there tonight, but we're going to have to keep doing that until and unless isis goes away. >> there's no solution presented to what to do about isis. that's what we're all stuck with right now. for our community, especially, earlier today we were with the president talking about the va scandal, haven't taken care of the folks who were in iraq the first time. there has to be an honest conversation how much our country can do and uphold our obligations overseas and here at home. veterans served in iraq are stuck on waiting lists, been a
result of cooked books. we have to take care of them. it's come full circle in one day. >> that was the other piece of news, getting overshadowed by what the president said to the country. paul rieckhoff, thanks for your t time tonight. going to bring in former pennsylvania congressman, patrick murphy. patrick, thanks for taking a few minutes tonight. again, we were talking about this with paul, but the first thing that every american thinks of, i imagine especially every veteran thinks of when they hear the president talking about military intervention in iraq, boots on the ground, getting dragged into something bigger than we thought it was going to be. what did you make of the case the president made tonight? does it meet the standard in your mind that he set? >> i think so. he was spot-on, steve. what the president said was we did a humanitarian effort, doesn't mean an act of congress. what he said was really isis, don't make a move.
these 40,000 minorities, refugees you're trying to kill and murder, if you take one more step toward them, then i'm going to take action, military action. now, he let congress know about it. under the war powers act, we know that's constitutional, but, you know, there's a debate in congress whether or not the war powers act is constitutional or not. the bottom line is, steve, the military is asked once again to solve a problem or come to the aid of the maliki government, and the maliki government, the solution is a political one, and it's reconciliation. let's hope we find a solution now. we can't wait more weeks, can't wait more months. maliki needs to step down now. >> you know, he's saying if you take one more step toward these people, toward these people in the mountains, you know, then we'll come after you, so don't do that. it does freeze in place a situation -- they've got these -- isis has got these people's town. they've come in, taken it over. they forced them up to the mountain. so it's one thing to say, don't go into the mountains, you know, it's another thing to say, get out of the town. let them come down from the
mountain. let them take their town back. do you think anything the president said tonight will have that affect? that might require more looking at the record of isis here. >> right. that's where you're talking about collateral damage, steve. you can't just do it with an air force. you do need boots on the ground and america doesn't want boots on the ground because isis right there in that town is not a clear and present danger to americans. now, isis, as a terror organization, they are worse than al qaeda. >> yeah. patrick, i don't mean to interrupt you. you just said a phrase there, obviously that's such a powerful phrase. boots on the ground. the president going out of his way in the speech tonight to say no boots on the ground. as somebody who's obviously an expert on this, looking at the situation, looking at these goals and objectives, am i hearing you right, are you suggesting in your mind to accomplish the goals of getting isis out of this town, to keep isis potentially from erbil, it might require boots on the ground to really do that job right? >> i don't think that should be the decision. i don't think that -- i don't
think that's the right answer to this political solution as needed. but i will tell you, yes, to get isis out -- you need the american military or the iraqi army. hopefully it's the iraqi army and not the american military. i don't think the american military should be the one to answer the call to solve the solution which is really a sectarian, religious issue going on right now in iraq. because maliki has been such a fail wrure and been a shia lead and not iraqi leader. >> msnbc contributor patrick murray. joining us now, richard engel, live from tel-a-viv, of course, reported from iraq for much of the last decade. richard, thanks for joining us tonight. i'm curious what your reaction is to what you heard the president say tonight. >> reporter: i think it's an indication of how serious the situation is in iraq. how the isis problem continues to grow. i was in baghdad just a few months ago. i'm here because i was covering
the war in gaza between hamas and israel. but before this, i was watching this march as isis was isis was toward baghdad. isis militants, they first took over mosul, the second largest city in the country. the iraqi army crumbled in front of them. they captured many weapons, u.s. donated weapons that were given to the iraqi military. and they were driving toward baghdad. the u.s. ultimately intervened, washington deciding that military advisers had to be sent. because of that, and because of the rise of the shiite population there, terrified that baghdad would come under assault, isis never got to baghdad. but they didn't stop fighting. instead, they moved back to their strong hold in the north around mosul and they spread out to the east and west. and they moved toward the
kurdish city and toward sinjar, where they drove a lot of the ethnic minorities out, they accused them of being devil worshippers. and isis accuses them of being devil worshippers because they have a very ancient religion that icis doesn't respect or understand. and drove about 40,000 people up on a barren mountain with no water, no food, no chance of survival. now the president, after first saying we're going to send military advisers has approved this limited mission and to try to break the blockade around them to destroy the isis position it is they present a
threat, and to try and protect the city where the u.s. has advisers. the question is, what will happen when there is the next crisis in what will happen when there is another group of people forced into a valley or up another mountain? i think we're seeing the extent of the problem but also the absolute inability of the iraqi security forces to deal with it. >> the other question it raises to me, richard, and i'm curious based on what you know of isis, what their reaction will be to what the president is saying? the president is saying don't go any further, or i've authorized air strikes and don't lay a glove on these people in the mountains. how does isis respond to that? >> this is a group that is not going to be deterred by threats. they were deterred only when confronted with a superior force. only did they slow their advance
toward baghdad when troops were put there, iraqi troops in this case and shiite militia troops were put there. i don't think they're going to be intimidated by these threats. perhaps they won't consider driving toward urbil. i don't think they would have had a chance of taking the city any way. it's a very strong firmly held kurdish city. they would have had a tough fight getting into kurdistan any way, but they could have gotten close to the city and lobbed artillery into it. i think the u.s. has drawn a line in the sand saying we will stand with erbil. the kurds in iraq were always the closest allies to american forces. they were the u.s. best friend in iraq.
to comm so to not commit to protecting them would have a tremendous betrayal. >> you mentioned the failures of the iraqi military. again, the president, as part of the case he was making to the nation tonight, he was saying this was a request that was made specifically to him by the iraqi government. we were talking about this on the show earlier, this idea is the united states, with doing the humanitarian drops and basically warning isis away from this mountain, is the u.s. trying to buy time for the iraqi military to go in and deal with the situation at the base of the mountain, is that plausible in the near future? >> i think this was more of an act of desperation than even that. i don't think the iraqi military has the logistical capability to get anywhere close to this mountain. we've been told that iraqi militaries called to baghdad for supplies. gasoline, more vehicles, air
support in particular, and those supplies simply are not coming. the u.s. would not be intervening here because the president knows the allergy that most people in the united states have to involvement of any kind in iraq. unless there was a complete inability for the iraqi forces to do it. >> richard engel, appreciate that. i want to bring in steve clemens now. steve, we had you on right before the president spoke. you've heard the discussion here. i'm just curious, your thoughts on it? >> i think the president, the e key word is genocide. the president has people in his administration, and they don't want to have a moment that was like bill clinton and rwanda. so genocide demands action. it is interesting that vice president biden's office just
put out a readout of his talk with the kurdish president and he says explicitly that the united states will do whatever it takes to protect our interest in erbil, including air strikes, which begs the question of what more beyond air strikes? that's just an interesting sentence and a readout. it's like kremlinology, but these read outs are important. >> that's the first thing i thought of as well. if you're drawing that line and you make another move, we're going to drop you with air strikes and the air strikes don't get it done, what then? >> there have been times when the white house has said in various cases, not with erbil but with baghdad that we would take whatever measures necessary far beyond what we were talking and they would be upon specific -- would be -- beyond drones and cruise missiles. we've also seen a creep-up of
advisers that have gone to iraq. it's hard to imagine if we begin bombing that you won't see those numbers creep up. the president showed real discipline in libya of not growing the foot print of military action. but it's very hard in these situations, and essentially, isis is operating across the borders of three or four countries. jordan, lebanon, syria, iraq. and we're talking about this as an isis story. this is really a sunni story. we need to begin thinking about what the stake holders are there. this is beyond malaki. we need to look at how to bring the saudis, the iranians, the turks and other stake holders into a very different kind of strategic social contract in that region. that's where the action needs to go. >> it's also a situation where you've had isis taking over these sunni areas.
en when you begin to open up the question of it may be time for an independent kurdish nation, we have 3 million kurds in syria, many kurds in turkey. that continues to blur the lines. it furthers the notion of ethnically cleansed states. and i think when you look at that kind of ethnonationalism in this region, it can be toxic and destabilizing for all the countries in that area. >> we've been talking about this a little, too. do you have any sense about the timetable? we know the president said if isis makes a further move towards erbil, that would warrant air strikes. the other question, these people trapped on the mountain. that seems more open ended in terms of when the president
might say now the situation warrants some sort of military strike. do you have any sense of where that line would be? if isis is not activity going into mountains and trying to kill them, but is not letting them return to their town, do you have any sense of when at that time the president would say we've got to take an air strike? >> i think we've animated every personnel we have to get iraq capacity devoted to doing something here. we're going to belie the puppet masters, moving the iraqis forward with various forms of intelligence. we'll be engaged but a step behind. but that's the only way they can move to bring relief to those people under siege. >> steve clemens, thanks for being with us. that does it for us tonight. msnbc's continuing coverage of this crisis in iraq continues now with "the last word with lawrence o'donnell." lawrence, good evening. >> thanks, steve.
our msnbc breaking news coverage of the situation in iraq continues. president obama confirmed a short time ago that he ordered a humanitarian mission if iraq today and that it has been carried out. escorted by f-18 fighter jets, u.s. military cargo planes have successfully dropped food, water and medicine in the sinjar mountain area where thousands are trapped by iraqi and syrian militants. a small religious kurdic sect fled after isis threatened to execute anyone who didn't convert. these 40 have died so far from dehydration, and the extreme heat. president obama met with his national a security team in the situation room earlier today and spoke moments ago. >> today i authorized two operations in iraq.