>> al jazeera america presents >> i'm a big girl now. i know what i want, i know what i have to do to get it. >> 15 stories one incredible journey edge of eighteen coming september only on al jazeera america american air strikes intensify in iraq. john dean will join us to mark the 40th anniversary of richard nixon's resignation. those stories and much more straight ahead. >> for anyone who needed a wakeup call, this is it. >> american war planes are once again striking inside iraq. >> trying to stop the advance of islamic state fighters. >> the government of iraq invited us

to assist them. >> america is coming to help. >> nato called russia to withdraw their troops from the border. >> russia is trying obully a small country. >> step back from the border. >> fragile ceasefire has crumbled. >> israeli war pleans planes are aoverhead. >> far greater than what held us together. >> are international public emergency. >> i am declaring the current outbreak of ebola disease a public health emergency of greatest concern. >> we begin with return of u.s. combat operations to iraq. friday for the second time, f-18

hornet fighters from the george zimmerman h.w. bush struck the kurdish city of erbil. two fighters dropped bombs on a military could b convoy. aid and u.s. humanitarian air drops have dropped more than 5,000 gallons are of water and prepackaged meals to 10,000 yazidi refugees. more air drops have been promised. iraqi christians and other religious minorities are fleeing. josh ernest said the help would be limited in scope.

>> president obama hasn't had an end date. we are going to take that approach in which those kinds of decisions are evaluated regularly and are driven by security situation on the ground. >> for more on america's role in iraq i'm joined from the state department in washington, d.c, by maria harf, the administration's spokesperson. maria, good to have you. has the bombing taken place in iraq just the beginning or could they be the end of the islamic state fighters don't push further into kurdistan? >> well the goals of these actions over the last 24 hours are really twofold, the first is to provide humanitarian assistance as we could. the u.s. military did a massive drop onto the mountain where the yazidis are at risk as the president says of genocide. and the second is to prevent

i.s.i.l. 's movement towards erbil. we've made progress here but the president has authorized the u.s. military to take actions they believe necessary. so i would expect to see more actions in the coming days. >> but is that policy too limited? because doesn't it then allow the extremists pretty much to act wherever else they want in iraq without fearing the u.s. bombing? >> not at all. look i think when you're a terrorist group that has the united states military dropping 500 pound bombs on you that doesn't give you a whole lot of comfort about where you can operate. let's be clear here. the president said last night this is for discrete purposes. long term, there is no american military solution to the challenge of i.s.i.l. what we're focused on the long term is to build up iraq forces to give them time and space so they can get back on their own

feet and fight on their own. we'll be helping them do so. >> creating an iraq up to now even one of president obama's form he ambassadors to iraq has asked the question why did the white house wait so long? >> to be clear when this crisis first began in june, we meld increased our surveillance so we had better eyes on if and when we star decided to take action. they are taking many actions on their own including 24 hours some iraqi hair strikes. we created joint operations centers in erbil, to provide rakes there with more information so we steadily increased our support. we've steadily helped the rakes get better in fighting this threat. but when there was a direct humanitarian challenge that we could help with and direct threat on erbil where we could help the president was confident to provide the action.

>> the president has made a commitment to help rescue the yazidi refugees trapped by the islamic state fighters up on a mountain side. does america's commitment go beyond that? what if these trustee extremists go beyond that? >> i'm not going to go beyond that. the principles of protecting our people not only in erbil but in baghdad will drive much of our decision making over the coming days and weeks of this issue. we have a wide range of toolts to help -- tools to help against i.s.i.l. >> even though sending help to northern iraq, what does defense department plans, what does the administration plan to do if anything to help the christian refugees who have been driven from their homes by the islamic state? >> well since 2008 we've provided i think $83 million to

help the minority populations inside iraq. a lot of our work is with the u.n. in terms of internally displaced persons but what you saw over the past 24 hours is that we will take additional steps to help humanitarian ways, because there is such a crisis. i think we should also remember that i.s.i.l.'s brutality isn't just limited to crifnt limited r yazidis, or kurds, then in their way they have committed to kill. we have committed to help iraqis in this fight that has affected all of iraq. >> shifting to the israeli crisis you said our hope is that the parties will agree to a ceasefire in the coming hours. can you elaborate on that? >> our team remains on the ground in cairo. we know the other parties left. we want to see a short term ceasefire so we can have an

attempt to negotiate a more sustainable ceasefire. that's in the best interests of the palestinians, it is in the best interest of the israelis. we saw hamas go forward with more rocket strikes, which leads us to where we are now. we need a ceasefire situation where we can get maybe hopefully a longer ceasefire in place. >> and do you think that will happen soon? >> well, we hope it will. but we know this is challenging, there are a lot of actors at play, we are committed to staying on the ground at cairo and working to see if we can get something in place. >> maria harf at the state department, thank you. for more on the situation i'm joined by robert grenier. mission manager in iraq from 2002 to 2004 and he is an al jazeera contributor. robert as always good to have you with us. the u.s. is using air power exclusively. it's clearly been effective to the extent it's been used but are you surprised that it is

being limited to far to just pinprick attacks? it certainly seems that there's no shock and awe this time around. >> well, no i'm not surprised. this administration as we know has very much wanted to avoid military engagement wherever they could and they are very cherry in drawn into an open military commitment. they are clear to state what the guidelines are what the policies are that they are trying to support and they're stating very clearly that any use of military force will be only in support of those objectives. number one to protect u.s. facilities and personnel and secondly to avoid a catastrophic humanitarian situation in northern iraq. >> in that context the white house says it's determined to keep the white house from being dragged into a long military conflict in iraq but isn't this the same issue we're facing in afghanistan lettings the enemy -- letting the enemy know

just how far we will go in iraq and they'll let the u.s. forces go away? >> i think you can make that argument. we are demonstrating already that the only way that the islamic state in iraq is going to attract u.s. military attention is if it launches direct attacks on peshmerga forces or threaten populations who fled their rule in northern iraq. as long as they stay away from that it would appear thus far they have no problem with the u.s. military. >> former u.s. air force colonel cedric layton told al jazeera this about the precision strikes. >> intelligence has to be key in this, you have to have absolute understanding of where people are at every second of the day. >> do we have those sorts of assets in place or can we do all the targeting from the air or by satellite? >> well, of course there are

drone assets that can be employed. there are things that can be done with satellites, quite a lot that can be done with satellites but the u.s. doesn't have military in iraq at this point but our military objectives are very limited but it's only those i.s.i.s. forces that are geangd in hostilities in -- engaged in hostilities that we are committed to defend. for instance as we saw earlier today if there is a battery which is firing on kurdish positions they've pretty well identified themselves and they're open to attack. for us to go further would require greater intelligence capabilities on the ground but we're not there yet. >> now even in a limited engagement situation and with the islamic state not having ground to air missiles that

could bring american planes down they do have issues and sometimes those jets have mechanical problems that could come down, even if the islamic state captain. are we in a position -- can't. are we in a poks t position to rescue a pilot if a plane goes down? >> the u.s. has very strict protocols on that and i don't believe if they could avoid it the u.s. military would be going into harm's way if we didn't have the capability to rescue pilots. in the persian gulfs we have turkey nsulit air base, and seasar capabilities to rescue them. >> these islamic state have

proved to be brutal. in order for the kurds to be able to mount more of a resistance? >> in my view absolutely. we ought to be aiding the kurds militarily in a much more serious way. we should be providing them with advisors, we should be provided them with sophisticated equipment. they are running low on ammunition. they don't have the weapons to match the i.s.i.s. fighters. so absolutely we should be providing them with assistance. one of the problems and one of the equations that the administration is trying very carefully to balance though is they don't want to get between the government in baghdad and north. in fact they've insisted thus far that anything we provide to the curd kurds should be done th baghdad since they are in political dispute right now. >> that's the problem, the iraqi government has been reluctant to

provide the kurds with the armament keeping most of it for the iraqi army itself. the islamic state's leader threatened the u.s. on friday calling us the holder of the cross and calling for a direct confrontation with his fighters. is there any doubt at this point that the islamic state has replaced the world with the biggest threat the u.s. has when we could conceivably bomb them to oblivion. >> well you know all politics is local. and yes, absolutely they do see themselves as being in the vanguard of the global jihadist movement. that's what they wanted it all along. they very much want to be in the leadership position of the global movement and in order to do that, they

have to threaten the major enemy which is the united states. and so yes i'm not at all surprised to hear him challenging the united states. and they think that they are in a very, very strong position. when you see what they've gone through in syria, the americans have certainly not been active in trying to counter them there. i think that they feel that the u.s. is a threat that they can manage at this point. >> robert renee, thank you for your insights and your time. ambassador hill from 2009 to 2010, ambassador to iraq, currently dean of the joseph cor bel corebel institute. i want to play something john kerry said on friday. >> the stakes for iraq's future could also be not more clear. and today's stakes underscore them significantly.

for anyone who wanted a wake up call this is it. >> we have seen this islamic state group on the offense itch in iraq seizing -- offensive killing sunnies for months. did the united states need this wakeup call from kurdistan to take action? >> you're absolutely right. this has been going on for months. but i think it also speaks to the fact that we are now seeing attacks not just against maliki's forces but against kurds as well against religious minorities up in nineoa. it's clear this i.s.i.s. group has bigger ambitions than just unseating mr. maliki. when the secretary speaks of a wakeup call he speaks of the fact that there is a movement there not just to a politician in baghdad but to the broader region as well. >> don't you think we should have seen that before because

certainly they dominate a whole section of syria and they've taken over much of northwestern iraq. should we have learned from bill clinton who has said his greatest regret was not acting sooner during the rwandan genocide. we've seen more than a million people displaced in iraq. >> we are looking this from the optics of whether the maliki government has done enough in terms of sunni outreach and other political gestures. but i think what's come clear in recent days is that this group has had much broader ambitions. there have been interviews with members of this group, where they not talk about stopping in baghdad or erbil but stopping at mecca. i think as this group has articulated its broader effort or broader ambitions i think it was necessary for our secretary of state to kind of issue that wakeup call. i don't think he's referring to himself.

i think he's referral to many people who saw this as just another annoying political problem in the meld of the middle east. >> to your point, the group's leader, abu bakr al-baghdadi threatened the united states directly. he said soon enough you will find yourself in confrontation with the sobs of islam who have prepared themselves well with the day we fight you. can we, in syria and iraq, possibly train thousands of would be fighters? some have said this is far worse than days before 9/11. >> this is getting very bad and of course the issue starts in syria. we had quite a free for all in syria and the real problem has been there has been no political or diplomatic way forward. even if bashar al-assad, the focus of much of the ire in the western world?

even if he were run over by a bus today, you have a serious question about how syria will be ruled in the future. will it be simply majority rule or some kind of federal structure some kind of canton system and yet nothing has been done and meanwhile there has been talk of arming some groups yet that hasn't been done either. i think we have a syria whose problems have been met as at a metastasized. what the administration has got to do is look at this as a broader region-wide issue involving shia, sunni and other divisions within the region. we have seen an unpres precedented weakening of the structures in the middle east and we have seen people taking refuge in structures. this is shaping up as you suggest as a really big league

problem that needs to be addressed comprehensively and by the way not just by the united states. i think other countries need to be not only looking at this but solution. >> in the context of those sectarian and tribal divisions many kurds are said to be ecstatic that the u.s. has intervened however modestly so far but certainly not all iraqis disagree. an iraqi shia says, that, someone else who was close to the shiite leader muqtada al sad r, said they were looking out for their own interests not for ours. do they have a point? the president has said , the

humanitarian crisis of the yazidis? >> in terms of humanitarian protecting the minority leaders. some of the shia can be forgiven by saying if they protect the kurds why haven't they protect us? one subtext is the kurds would have declared an independent state sometime ago were it not for the fact that the united states has made it very clear the united states opposes that type of breakup of iraq and therefore opposes the formation of an independent kurdish state. not helping the kurds that equation could change for the kurdish leadership. >> the presidential has to face the big question of course just how the u.s. can get involved all over the world with so many problems that we're seeing

now. ambassador christopher hill, a pleasure having you with us. thanks. coming up israeli air strikes intensifies. and w.h.o. designates ebola an international health emergency. >> tonight. gaza, experience what it's like on the ground, first hand, as our crew gets caught in the chaos. the reality of war. shujayea: massacre at dawn. tonight, 10:30 eastern. only on al jazeera america.

>> rockets and missiles are flying between israel and gaza again. five palestinians were reportedly killed including a ten-year-old boy and several israelis were injured. attempts by negotiators to salvage peace continued in cairo with little help for a break through. israeli delegation left egypt after rejecting palestinian proposals calling for a lifting of the israeli blockade on gaza. >> they broke the promise of the talk and there will not be negotiations under fire. >> for the latest we're joined

in jerusalem by al jazeera correspondent jane ferguson. good to see you again. is there hope for a break through now with the palestinians staying in cairo and the israelis leaving? >> well, hope seems to be fading of course as you said. that ceasefire expired and now we're back to similar violence we have seen over rocket fire being exchanged. the israeli delegation have left so officially they're not partaking in talks. unofficially however they are making contact because of course don't forget that these have all been indirect talks. they are not sitting down at the table with the palestinians. we have had egyptians shuttling between the two sides. it is possible there is some communication ongoing even though israelis aren't in cairo itself. the likelihood of a break through, in terms of the lifting

of this blook blockade on gaza whether or not the palestinians will accept a partial lifting or slight easing whether they will stick by what their demands are a near total lifting of the brookd ball twblockade and whete israelis feel like they're in a position to need to give any concessions is unclear at this point. >> what about the fighting? we have new video exclusive to al jazeera of hamas fighters inside a tunnel that apparently was not destroyed. hamas broke the truce, israel fired back but so far no issue whether israeli troops are goog back to gaza? >> israelis didn't want to extend it because they didn't see their terms being met. in terms of tunnels, israelis say they largely destroyed the tunnels. they said they came back to

their public and said what has been achieved by the past month of rocket fire. destroying the tunnels was one of the main objectives but it's important to remember that these tunnels are not one or two going from gaza into israel. it is an entire network. if you take out one of those tunnels it will be another. it is an entire web of tunnels. until we have seen an attack using a tunnel an attack where palestinians go into israel we're unlikely seeing israel soldiers back in gaza strip. basically we're unlikely seeing boots on the ground now that they've withdrawn those. what's more likely is further rocket fire, more air strikes by the israelis to finish off whatever tunnels they feel are still there rather than to strike inside the gaza strip. >> jane ferguson from jerusalem thank you.

joining us from our studio in los angeles is the consul general david segal. good to have you with us. while i understand the israeli position of no negotiations while under fire why leave cairo altogether? >> it's a grave situation. here with israel fulfilling its side of the bargain for three days of a ceasefire. we stopped the fire, we pulled out of the gaza strip we ceased all operation is against terrorist targets. here we are again in a situation where hamas and terrorist groups are firing into israel into rural areas into cities, the ceasefire the whole premise was that the fire would stop and this again is why the situation is so grave. >> now the entire palestinian delegation not just hamas insists for a ceasefire to continue, israel needs to lift the blockade on gaza.

can't israel consider that? there was an editorial in the haretz newspaper there is a lack on prime minister netanyahu part. >> given a sustained ceasefire israel has low pressure been often the record by saying we're very willing to discuss the reconstruction of gaza, to start bringing in the humanitarian supplies and everything that is needed for the people of gaza. but you certainly can't do this, when rockets are being fired on your country. and by the way, the wore blockade it's restrictions and the restrictions came as a result of the rockets, not the other way around. so this again is something that we need for our own security but we're willing to open up and lessen those restrictions in the context of a sustained ceasefire. >> egypt is refusing to lift its own restrictions its own blockade at least so far. have the israelis gotten

anywhere in their demand that gaza be demill tried? >> it should be very clear that in order for the gaza strip to go through the reconstruction it needs to go through you need to have some control of the resources going into the gaza strip. to make sure that it goes to the people and not to the terror organizations. in the past we saw that the cement that the metal that the supplies that went in went underground for the purpose of terrorism not for the purpose of the people. again this is something we believe is something that is a very important concept and it >> good morning to you 37 i'm morgan radford. president obama is cliffing a statement from the south lawn of the white house on the situation in iraq. >> to protect our american diplomats and military personn personnel.

meanwhile kurdish forces on the ground defend the city and the united states and the iraqi government to step up the military assistance to kurdish forces as they wage their fight. second, our humanitarian effort continues to help the men, women, and children stranded on mount sinjar. american forces so far have conducted two successful air drops, delivering thousands of meals and gallons of water to these desperate men, women and children. and help forces in iraq to break the seen and rescue of those who are trap there had. now even as we deal with these immediate situations we will continue to pursue a broader strategy in iraq. we will protect our american citizens in iraq whether they're diplomats, civilians, or military. if these terrorists threaten our

military or personnel we'll continue to protect our people. we'll continue to deliver military advice against these terrorists so the terrorists cannot establish a safe-haven. we'll continue to work with the humanitarian national opportunity. countless iraqis have been driven or fled from their homes including many. this morning i spoke with prime minister cameron of the united nations and president hollande of france i'm pleased both leaders have agreed to join us in providing humanitarian assistance to iraqi civilian who is are suffer something much. once again america is proud to work long side our closest friends and allies. more broadly we'll respond to the needs of those iraqis fleeing from areas under

athlete. the u.n. security council has called on the international community to do everything it can to provide food, water and shelter, and with my calls to my allies and friends around the world i continue to call them to join us on this humanitarian effort. finally we continue to call on iraqis to come together and form an inclusive government that iraq needs right now. vice president biden has been speaking with iraqi leaders and our team is in close touch with iraqi government. all iraqi communities are ultimately threatened by these barbaric terrorists and all these iraqi terrorists need to unite to defend their country. just as we are focused on the situation in the north. sunni and shia in different parts of iraq have suffered mightily at the hands of isil. once the inclue sufficient government is in place i'm confident it will be easier to

mobilize all iraqis against isil, and to mobilize greater support from our friends andallies. ultimately only iraqis can secure th iraq. the united states can't do it for them, but we can and will be partners in that effort. one final thing as we go forward we'll consult with congress and coordinate closely with our allies and partners and as americans we'll continue to show gratitude to our men and women in uniform who are conducting our operations there. when called they were ready as they always are. given their mission they will perform with distinction and when we see them serving with such honor and compassion in saving people they have never met that makes us proud as americans as we always will be. with that let me take a couple of questions. >> how long period of time do you see these airstrikes

continue for and is it your goal to detain isis or to destroy it? >> i'm not going to give a particular timetable. as i said from the start. wherever and whenever u.s. personnel and facilities are threatened it's my obligation anas command center chief to make sure that they're protected. we're not moving our embassy, we're not move our consulate any time soon. that means given the challenge in security environment we're going to maintain vigilance and insure that our people are safe. our initial goal is to not only make sure americans are protected, but also to deal with this humanitarian situation in sinjar. we feel confident that we can prevent isil from going up a

mountain and slaughtering the people who are there. but the next step, which is going to be complicated logistically is how do we give safe passage to people down from the mountain, and where can we ultimately relocate them so that they are safe. that's the kind of coordination we need internationally. i was very pleased to get the corporation of both prime minister cameron and president hollande in addressing some of the immediate needs in terms of air drops and some of the assets and logistical provided. our experts are engaged with the united nations and our allies and partners and that is how do we create a safe corridor or some other mechanism so these people can move. that may take some time because of the varyingest ing estimates

of how many people are up there, and in the thousands, and it's not simple in this security environment. to give people a sense of the time available that most important timetable that i'm focused on right now is the iraqi government getting formed and finalis finalized. in the absence of an iraqi government it is very hard to get an unified effort by iraqis against isil. we can conduct airstrikes but ultimately there is not going to be an american military solution to this problem. there is going to have to be an iraqi solution that americans and allies can support. that can't happen effectively until we have a legitimate iraqi government. so right now we have a preside president, we have a speaker, but we don't yet have a prime

minister and cabinet that is formed that can move forward and start reaching out to all the various groups and factions inside of iraq. and can give confidence to populations in the sunni areas that isil is not the only game in town. it also then allows us to take those iraqi security forces that are able and functional, and they understand who they're reporting to and what they're fighting for and what the chain of command is and it provides a structure in which better cooperation is taking place between the kurdish region and baghdad. we're going to be pushing very hard to encourage iraqis to get their government together. until we do that it is going to be hard to get the unity of effort that allows us to not just play defense but also engage in some offense.

>> long wars in afghanistan and iraq with uncertain outcomes, how do you assure the american people that we're not getting dragged into another war in iraq. have you under estimated the power of isis, and finally you said that you involved international partners in humanitarian efforts. is there any talk of international partners in military action against the spread of isis. >> number one, i've been very clear we're not going to have u.s. combat troops in iraq again. we are going to maintain that because we should have learned a lesson from our long and immensely costly incursion in iraq. that is that our military is effective that we can keep a lid on province wherever we are if

we put enough personnel and resources in it, but it can only last if the people in that's countries themselves are able to arrive at the kinds of political accommodations and compromise that any civilized society requires. so it would be a big mistake for us to think that we can on the cheap simply go in, tamper everything down again, restart without some fundamental shift in attitudes among various iraqi factions. that's why it's important to have an iraqi government on the ground taking responsibility that we can help, partner with, that has the capacity to get the alliances in the region, and once that's in place, then i think we end up being one of

many countries that can work together to deal with the broader crisis that isil poses. >> did we under estimate isil? i think that there is no doubt that their advance, their movement over the last several months has been more rapid than the intelligence estimates and i think the expectations of policymakers both in and outside of iraq. part of that is i think not a full appreciation of which the iraqi security forces when they're far away from baghdad did not have the incentive or the capacity to hold ground against an aggressive adversary.

so that's one more reason why the iraqi government formation is so important because there has to be a rebuilding and an understanding of who it is that the iraqi security forces are reporting to, what they're fighting for, and there has to be some estimate in pushing back against isil. i think we're already seeing and we will see even further the degree to which those territories under ill control alienate populations because of the brutality of which they operate. but if we were to insure that sunni populations reject outright of these kinds of

incursions, they have to feel like they're invested in a broader national government, and right now they don't feel that. the up shot is that what you have seen over the last several months indicates the weaknesses in iraqi government, but what we've also scene i think is a wake-up call for a lot of iraqis inside of baghdad recognizing that we're going to rethink how we do business if we're going to hold our country together. and hopefully that change in attitude supplemented by improved security efforts in which we can assist and help, that can make a difference. >> do you express confidence that the iraqi government can

eventually provide safe haven but you just described the complication to iraqi government and the sophistication of isil, is it possible that it could take years and not months. >> i don't think we're going to solve this problem in weeks. the security forces to mount an offensive and operate effective in the sunni areas, it will all be dependent on a government that the iraqi people and iraqi military have confidence in. we can help in those efforts. part of what we do is preserve a space for them to do the hard work that is necessary. if they do that the one thing

that i also think has changed is that many of the sunni countries in the region who have been generally suspicious or wary of the iraqi government are more likely to join in, in the fight against isis. that can be extremely helpful. this is going to be a long-term project. part of what we've seen is a minority sunni population in iraq as well as a majority sunni population in syria has felt dissatisfied and detached and alienated from their respected governments, and that has been a ripe territory for these jihadists and extremists to operate. inrebuilding governments in

those areas and legitimacy for stable, moderate governing in those areas is going to take--it's going to take time. now, there are some immediate concerns that we have to worry about. we have to make sure that isil is not engaging in actions that could triple a country permanently. there's key infrastructure inside iraq that we have to be concerned about. my team has been vigilant even before isil went into mosul about foreign fighters andy hadists gathering in syria and now in iraq who might potentially launch attacks outside of u.s. targets. there is already an u.s. element that we've been preparing for

and working diligently on for a long time now. there is going to be a military element in protecting our people but the long term campaign in changing that environment so that millions of sunnies who live in these areas feel connected and well served by a national government, that's a long-term process. that's something that the united states cannot do. only the iraqi people themselves cathemselves. we can help. we can advise, but we cannot do it for them. the u.s. military cannot do it for them. this goes back to the question of u.s. military involvement. that the nature of this problem is not one that is u.s. military can solve. we can assist and our military

obviously can play an extraordinarily important role in pollstering effort --bolstering efforts of an iraqi partner as they make the right steps to keep their country together, but we can't do it for them. last question. >> $100 billion in iraq. do you anticipate having to ask congress for additional funds to support this mission? >> currently we are operating within the budget constraints that we already have. and we'll have to evaluate what happens over time. we already have a lot of assets in the region we anticipate when we make preliminary budgets that there may be things come up requiring us to engage, and right now at least i think we're okay. if and when we need additional

dollars to make sure that american personnel and american facilities are protected, then we will certainly make that request. but right now that's not our primary concern. last question. >> do you have second thoughts about pulling all ground troops out of iraq, and does it give you pause as u.s. is doing the same thing in afghanistan? >> you know what i just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps coming up, as if this was my decision. under the previous administration we had turned over the country to a sovereign democratically elected government. in order for us to maintain troops in iraq we needed the

invitation of the iraqi government, and we needed assurances that our personnel would be immune from prosecution if, for example, they were protecting themselves and ended up getting in a fire fight with iraqis, that they would not be held so an iraqi judicial. iraqis were tired of an u.s. occupation, declined to provide those assurances. on that basis we left. we had offered to leave additional troops. when you hear people say do you regret, mr. president, not leaving more troops, that pre-supposes that i would have overridden this sovereign government that we had turned the keys back over to sand aing you're democratic, sovereign

except if i decide that it's good for you to keep 10,000 or 15,000 or 25,000 marines in your country, you don't have a choice. which would have run contrary to the entire government we were making to turn the country back over to iraqis. an argument not just made by me but the previous administration. so let's just be clear, the reason why we did not have a full-on force in iraq is because the iraqis were--the majority of iraqis did not want u.s. troops there, and politically they could not have passed the kind of laws that would have been required to protect our troops in iraq. having said all that if, in fact, the iraqi government behaved the way it did over the last five, six years where it failed to pass legislation that

would reincorporate sunnies and give them a sense of ownership, if it had targeted certain sunni leaders and jail, if it had alienated some of the sunni tribes that we had brought back in during the so-called event to help us turn the tied in 2006. the only difference would be that we would have a bunch of troops on the ground that would be vulnerable. however many troops we had we would now have to be reinforcing, i would have to be protecting them, and we would have a much bigger job, and probably we would end up having to go up again in terms of the number of ground troops to make sure that those forces were not vulnerable. so that entire analysis is bogus and is wrong, but it gets

frequently ped dled around here who are oftentimes trying to defend previous policy made. going forward in afghanistan we are leaving full-on force there. i think the lesson for afghanistan is not the fact that we've got a follow-on force. the reel lesson in afghanistan is that factions in a country after a long period of civil war do not find a way to come up with a political accommodation, if they take maximalist positions and their attitude is i want 100% of what i want and the other side gets nothing, then the center doesn't hold. the good news is that in part thanks to the excellent work of john kerry and others we now are

seeing the two candidates in the recent presidential election start coming together, and agreeing not only to move forward on the audit to be able to finally certify a winner in the election, but also the kinds of political accommodations that are going to be required to keep democracy moving. that's the real lesson for afghanistan coming out of iraq is if you want this thing to work then whether it's different ethnicities, different religions, different regions, they have to accommodate each other. otherwise you start tipping back into old patterns of violence. it doesn't matter how many u.s. troops are there if that happens. you end up having a mess. all right, thanks a lot, guys. >> all right, that was the president exiting the south lawn where he said one strikes were

successful in iraq and the humanitarian effort is working. there were two successful air drops were supplies were given to men, women and children and also said that the united kingdom and france will both help america in help alleviate some of that international humanitarian crisis. he said its important for the iraqi communities to come together, and when that happens they can battle isis. he said the u.s. cannot do it for the iraqis but we can help. he said logistically is the next step is to get these people off the mountain and into safety and that's where the international community comes into play. he said ultimately there will not be an american military solution to this problem, and finally we should have learned a lesson from our incursion in iraq. we'll have more on that tomorrow morning in our weekend politics

segment. thank you so much for watching al jazeera, i'm morgan radford. .

real understanding... >> where you scared when you hear the bombs? >> al jazeera america real... news... >> welcome to the news hour. coming up in the next 60 minutes. >> if these terrorists threaten our facilities or personnel we will take action to protect our people. >> president obama promises to continue the fight against the islamic state group in northern iraq. it comes as emergency aid is dropped for thousands of people stranded by the fighting. [ explosion ]