the fastest lunch. turkey club. the fastest pencil sharpener. the fastest elevator. the fastest speed dial. the fastest office plant. so why wouldn't i choose the fastest wifi? i would. switch to comcast business internet and get the fastest wifi included. comcast business. built for business. this is cnn breaking news. >> hello, i'm jake tapper in washington, d.c. in just a few minutes, president obama is scheduled to deliver a statement on the growing crisis in iraq and what the u.s. government plans to do about it. several u.s. officials tell us that the pentagon has presented the president with a plan that

would send up to 100 u.s. special forces into iraq. they would help advise the iraqi military collect intelligence on the islamic militants of the group isis which has seized territory in northern iraq and is advancing closer to baghdad. the special operations teams would likely be made up of green berets, army rangers and navy s.e.a.l.s. president obama currently is meeting with his national security team right now. his statement which was previously scheduled to begin a half hour ago is now set for 1:15 eastern, in about 15 minutes. cnn, of course, covering this story from all the angles. we begin with senior white house correspondent jim acosta. jim? >> reporter: jake, as you said, the president is expected to come into the briefing room in about 15 minutes to lay out his strategy for the next chapter for the united states in iraq. as you've been saying for the last 15, 20 minutes, this has been a difficult chapter for the united states because of the war that began back in 2003.

the president's decision to end that war back in 2011, and now he's coming under heavy criticism from republicans up on capitol hill who are saying now that he made a mistake in not getting a forces agreement that would have left a residual force in iraq. it will be interesting, jake, because he's had a whole slew of questions thrown at him all week long as to which questions the president will choose to take. obviously he needs to lay out exactly what he wants to do. we expect him to do that coming out of this meeting with his national security team. but in addition to that, jake, there's also this question of iraq iraqi prime minister nuri al maliki. the president has made it clear he's disappointed in maliki's leadership in iraq. he said basically u.s. assistance for iraq is conditional and conditioned upon the iraqi government making some changes, making some reforms to be more inclusive with the shia -- with the sunni and kurdish sects in that country. and so it will be interesting to see how the president responds to that, if he takes questions

here in the briefing room. i'm sure that will be asked of him. is he demanding that nuri al maliki go in exchange for some kind of assistance from the u.s. government? so lots of questions for this president. lots of accusations coming from capitol hill. you heard john mccain saying earlier this morning that the president has been fiddling while baghdad burns. make no mistake, jake, you know this from being over here at the white house, the president may be champing at the bit to respond to that political criticism. >> christiane amanpour is in new york. we've heard some interesting comments from people who have been involved in iraq previously, especially former general david petraeus, cautioning the united states government from necessarily siding with one side in what could end up becoming a civil war. obviously the iraqi government in this construct would be the shiite side against isis's sunni side. what strikes you the most about the criticisms and comments we're hearing from so many

people involved in the previous military exercise in iraq? >> well, most of the military commentary that i've heard and that i've sought myself including from commanders who were involved last time around and in the intervening ten years or so is that it sums up as follows. we were as irresponsible leaving this war as we were in getting into this war. and by that, these commanders mean that there was a period of time when isis, its precursor, aqi, were in the throes of that collapse. there was a surge. isis and al qaeda were defeated and the united states pulled out. and there's been a huge amount of optic to the point that isis in control of an area right now. now, it is true that there are many people -- and i think perhaps general petraeus is referring to other sunni states in the region such as saudi arabia, such as the gulf states who want not to see a shiite regime propped up in baghdad. and i think the united states doesn't want to see a shiite regime propped up in baghdad. what they want to see is a

power-sharing agreement. and that is going to be the hard part. there seems to be three options. partition, which is very bad for the united states and for the rest of the region. that is what's happening right now. or if there is a real threat to baghdad and to the other parts of maliki's government, some people think iran might come in and then prop up what could be a shiite government and a shiite dictatorship. or the other thing that others are positing is that all those interested parties, whether it's the united states, iran, the saudis, the gulf states and the parties inside iraq, sit together, make the political compromises, make the political pressures that have to be made right now to keep iraq a unified state but one that represents the whole of the people. and that's going to be the hardest, and that's going to be the one, though, that most people who want to see iraq not fall into an al qaeda state and not collapse into three parts. that's what people would like to

see. that's going to be the hardest. >> pentagon correspondent barbara starr has been reporting all morning on the possible plan that president obama will pick, sent over by the pentagon, up to 100 special operations forces sent to iraq to help the iraqi government fight off this terrorist group, this militia, isis. barbara, what is the military reality on the ground for the u.s.? >> reporter: well, look, jake. what are we really talking about here? we are talking, for the first time, since the u.s. left iraq in december 2011 100 u.s. military families seeing their loved ones sent back into iraq. there have been a couple of hundred u.s. troops at the embassy doing security work in very secure locations. but these are going to be 100 special forces going back into essentially front-line positions at brigade headquarters for the iraqi military around the country. we will learn the details.

but, you know, if you're going to put -- the reality is this. if you're going to put 100 troops on the ground, they don't go by themselves. you have to be able to provide secure transportation, armored vehicles, weapons. you have to be able to have the backup military force if they run into trouble, heaven forbid. combat search and rescue, medical care, evac for any wounded or casualties. you can bet that isis may try and come after these installations where these americans will be. special forces, we've talked about it all morning. they will tell you you're in combat. when somebody's shooting at you, you're in combat. special forces are always prepared for that. so what you have seen over the last couple of days is helicopters being positioned in the area, security -- other security forces being positioned in the area, ships at sea with helicopters. you really do have a much larger picture evolving here than just 100 special forces.

it will be all the backup so they stay safe and they can do what they are sent there to do. but this could be a very sensitive situation. >> barbara starr at the pentagon. we're going to take one quick break. president obama expected to speak from the briefing room in just a few minutes. stay with us. what does an apron have to do with car insurance? an apron is hard work. an apron is pride in what you do. an apron is not quitting until you've made something

a little better. what does an apron have to do with car insurance? for us, everything.

count on cortizone-10. with the strongest, non-prescription itch medicine for fast relief. and 7 moisturizers. cortizone-10. feel the heal. welcome back to cnn's special coverage of the crisis in iraq. president obama expected at any minute to make an announcement about what the u.s. will be doing about the descent of isis fighters, terrorist organization coming to iraq, taking control of part of the country, especially to the north of baghdad, perhaps even descending upon baghdad.

in baghdad right now, we have our own anderson cooper who joins us now live. anderson, what are the iraqis with whom you're speaking telling us about what they want the united states to be doing when it comes to preventing isis from taking any more land, especially the capital of baghdad? >> reporter: you know, when you talk to people on the street, there's a lot of pride and a lot of people will tell you, look, we don't need the u.s., iran, other people coming in here. we can defend ourselves. clearly, that has not been the case, and a lot of these bases where iraqi troops have cut and run. clearly the iraqi government of nuri al maliki want more involvement, usairstrikes, as much help on the battlefield they can possibly get. you've raised really interesting issues in the last hour, and it's important to hone in on some key questions on these special forces. what bases are they actually going to be positioned in? the most forward bases where they're probably needed most,

there's obviously the most dangerous areas. a lot of those bases have already been overrun. they're not going to be sent there. and exactly what is their role going to be? obviously intelligence gathering on isis forces to help iraqi forces, but also just trying to lift the morale and stiffen the spine of some of these iraqi forces. that may be an important role that they can play and possibly reaching out to some of these sunni groups who they've had relationships with in the past to see if they can be peeled off from supporting isis forces which they seem to be at this point. >> anderson cooper live in baghdad. we're going to take this one last break. we're expecting president obama to speak from the white house briefing room about the crisis in iraq and whether or not he will be sending u.s. forces into iraq after this quick break. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 searching for trade ideas that spark your curiosity

tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 can take you in many directions. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 you read this. watch that. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 you look for what's next. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 at schwab, we can help turn inspiration into action tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 boost your trading iq with the help of tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 our live online workshops tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 like identifying market trends. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 now, earn 300 commission-free online trades. call 1-888-628-7118 or go to schwab.com/trading to learn how. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 sharpen your instincts with market insight from schwab tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 experts like liz ann sonders and randy frederick. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 get support and talk through your ideas with our tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 trading specialists. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 all with no trade minimum. and only $8.95 a trade. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 open an account and earn 300 commission-free online trades. call 1-888-628-7118 to learn more.

tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 so you can take charge of your trading. welcome back to cnn's continuing coverage of the crisis in iraq. we are expecting president obama any minute to come to the podium to make his announcement about what he intends to do about the crisis in iraq, whether or not he will be sending any troops, special operations or otherwise, into baghdad. i'm joined here in the studio with gloria borger and chief foreign affairs correspondent for "time" magazine michael crowley. there is a lot of discomfort i would imagine in the white house right now because michael, president obama is where he is, in no small way, because he opposed sending troops to iraq back in 2003. >> yeah. it's just a terrible irony that must be incredibly personally

frustrating for a president whose road to the white house was really built on his opposition to the war and his belief that america should leave quickly, that it was in america's interests and he argued in iraq's interests for us to get out, that we were artificially propping up a system that had to in effect take off the training wheels. you both know so well how many times he's boasted about winding down the wars, and we're out of iraq. and i think just on a kind of personal emotional level for him, it has to be really hard not to mention the very serious national security strategic consequences of this crisis. >> to this day he refuses to say he does not believe that the surge was a good thing. the surge and obviously it's more complicated than having -- than president bush having sent more troops to iraq. there was the sunni awakening and a whole bunch of other things that allowed that war to go better after the surge. >> sure. >> but president obama, to this day, does not say it was a good idea to do that. >> no, he has not, and that's why there is such agony here,

clearly. and also don't forget, you have a president now who has to come out and tell the american people that he is sending these special operations force there, and he has to make the case to the american people why this is a matter of national security interest to us in this country when, in fact, he has been making the opposite case all along, and it was, you know, the basis for his initial run for the presidency. so it's -- it's a very -- it's an internal drama here and also something that clearly, given the fact that the statement is delayed and delayed, it's clearly been a subject of a lot of discussion inside, you know, inside the white house because -- because they're struggling with two-thirds of the american public opposes -- said that iraq wasn't worth it. 37% of the american public thinks the president's done a good job on foreign policy. only 37%. he's in a very, very difficult

situation right now with this. >> i want to go to capitol hill, chief congressional correspondent, dana bash. dana, obviously president obama surrounded by advisers from the military community, telling him that isis cannot be allowed to continue to have this safe haven in syria, in iraq that allowing them to do so poses an existential threat to the united states, many in the military and intelligence communities, concerned about the american fighters and other westerners fighting alongside isis. and yet even with that, i suspect there are a lot of republicans along with democrats on capitol hill that are very reluctant to send any more troops into that country. >> reporter: there are because, you know, in fact, we were talking sort of amongst ourselves, those of us who cover capitol hill for cnn this morning that even the house republicans, the only part of the government right now that's run by republicans, even those rank and file are very different from those who were here back

when the iraq war started. they're not as hawkish. they're not as -- the idea of spending more money, never mind sending more troops in any way, shape or form is much more foreign to them. they're much more focused on the home front, much more -- much less interventionist than, you know, the george bush/dick cheney republicans that were not just in the white house at the time but here on capitol hill. so certainly that speaks to the republican party. having said that, you also are still seeing some of the real -- the partisan divide that is not unexpected with any president, but particularly at this point in the obama presidency. even again today, jake, john boehner who has been very forceful saying that president obama last week, he said he was taking a nap. today he said that the wheels have come off. really strong language saying that the united states and americans are exponentially less

safe under this president because of the regional issues, because the region, not just iraq, but the region has exploded with terrorism. you certainly have the push and the pull among republicans with their constituents, but then the desire to be more robust and hit the president on what they fundamentally believe has been a foreign policy failure with pulling troops out of iraq. >> members of the house and is that the eagerly awaiting word from president obama about his decision, what he will do when it comes to sending troops to iraq, special operations forces or otherwise. we're going to take a quick break. president obama expected in the press briefing room at any moment. back after this.

welcome back to cnn's continuing coverage of the crisis in iraq. we are expecting a statement from president obama any minute now about his decision on whether or not to send troops of any form, special operations or otherwise, into iraq.

there is a lot of discussion about a plan being floated by the pentagon to send up to 100 special operations forces. that's delta force, green berets, navy s.e.a.l.s into baghdad to assist the iraqi government in repelling the terrorists, the militia isis. i want to go to lieutenant colonel rick francona, military analyst who served as a u.s. air force intelligence officer during the persian gulf war and also served in northern iraq in '95 and '96 with the cia. rick, when you think about the u.s. involvement in iraq, it is a complicated history. what can president obama learn from the nine years troops were there that he should keep in mind when engaging in whatever this decision is? what lessons did we learn? >> well, i think the biggest one is that we're not going to change iraq from the outside. the iraqis have to do this. we can give them the opportunity to do that. but right now he's got a pressing situation he has to fix before we can get there.

and that's we've got to deal with this isis problem immediately. then down the road we've got to give the iraqis the opportunity to reform the country. and unfortunately, i don't think prime minister maliki is going to be receptive to that. we've got to create a situation -- i don't know how we do that -- where the iraqis can build some sort of system where they can all work together. but right now that looks very difficult. >> you heard dana bash, our chief congressional correspondent, relaying the concerns of house minority leader nancy pelosi. the concern obviously in the history of this country and the u.s. involvement in military adventures abroad, often 100 special operations forces will be sent into a country, 100 advisers will be sent in. and before you know it, there are thousands and thousands of american ground troops in that country. that, of course, a concern among politicians on capitol hill.

there also has to be a concern among members of the u.s. military, i would think. >> this is a very common problem, jake. and we see it over and over again. you start off doing one thing, and then you add one more thing to it, and you add one more thing to it, you before i in more people to do those things. we call this mission creep. and your mission now starts out as advisory, and then you become participants, and then you they'd to beef up that presence. so that's something we have to guard about. and i'm sure that the planners at the pentagon are making the president aware of that concern. >> i want to go to senior white house correspondent jim acosta. jim, the president has been discussing whether or not to take any sort of action, whether it's airstrikes or sending special operations forces or more or less in iraq for the better part of a week. how much does president obama believe isis, this terrorist militia that is seizing parts of iraq, how much does he believe it is an existential threat not to u.s. interests, not just to

u.s. allies but to the united states itself? >> i think that's a key question in all of this, jake. and i think it's important to report -- and i know you have talked about this as well -- is that caution is really sort of the northstar for this president. we saw him get very close to the precipice of launching airstrikes in the civil war in syria, and he pulled back to that. he decided against that at the last minute. and it feels eerily similar to that situation and what we're seeing right now. we're going to hear the president come out in a few minutes and talk about what he's discussed with his national security advisers back in the situation room. but jake, about this isis threat, he said last week, you know, it was with the australian prime minister here at the white house one week ago where he said that, you know, he might need to authorize a short-term immediate action of some sort to respond to this threat by isis. it now seems as if that threat has abated. or at least that urgency has abated over here at the white house. and there might be a couple of reasons why.

i've talked to a senior intelligence official this week who said that they feel that the iraqi security forces in baghdad are very different than the isf soldiers that you saw in the northern part of the country just melt away. they feel because of the makeup of the isf soldiers in baghdad, the fact that they're going to be more shia, the fact that they're going to be more prone to not lay down their arms in the capital city, that really reduced the threat in their minds that baghdad would fall. and so that took that urgency away for this president. and i think it gave the president and his national security team some room to breathe and really go through these options, gave him time to consult with congress. you heard dana bash a few moments ago say, you know, john boehner earlier this morning said that the president's white house -- the wheels are coming off his presidency. one thing that we did hear from the speaker's office earlier this week is that they feel and a lot of republicans feel up on capitol hill that the president, his national security team, his chief of staff have been in greater contact with members of

congress, that the consultations with congress have been more robust, you might say, as opposed to what happened during the bergdahl case where there was very little to no consultations with congress. and so that isis threat that seemed very urgent late last week when you saw the president make that statement on the south lawn before getting on marine one and leaving for california, i get the sense from this white house, from talking to officials here that they're just not in the same wasituation that they were a week ago. baghdad did not fall. the shias are starting to rise up and take the fight to isis, and that has created room for the president to perhaps put together a more comprehensive strategy, and i think that's what we'll be hearing in just a few moments, that we're not going to be talking about military strikes. we may be talking about advisers or special operations forces going to iraq. perhaps in lesser numbers than the people in this briefing room right now, we should point out. it appears that the strategy the president is going to lay out is

going to be more comprehensive than airstrikes. as people say, jake, this presidency -- and we've heard this and you've heard this as well -- this presidency has been about ending wars, not starting them. and i think that's why you may hear more caution from the president as opposed to what we heard last week, jake. >> jim acosta at the white house. we're going to take a quick break. we're expecting president obama to come out any minute. stay with us. spokesperson: the volkswagen passat is heads above the competition, but we're not in the business of naming names. the fact is, it comes standard with an engine that's been called the benchmark of its class. really, guys, i thought... it also has more rear legroom than other midsize sedans. and the volkswagen passat has a lower starting price than... much better. vo: hurry in and get 0% apr for 60 months on 2014 passat gasoline models

plus a $1000 contract bonus. ugh. heartburn. did someone say burn? try alka seltzer reliefchews. they work just as fast and are proven to taste better than tums smoothies assorted fruit. mmm. amazing. yeah, i get that a lot. alka seltzer heartburn reliefchews. enjoy the relief.

welcome back to cnn's continuing coverage of the crisis in iraq. for more than an hour now, we have been waiting for president obama to come out to the briefing room to announce what exactly he intends to do, if anything, about the encroachment of the terrorist militia isis coming to baghdad which appeared to be the plan of isis several weeks ago, several days ago. we have two minutes until president obama comes out. i want to go quickly to chief international affairs correspondent christiane amanpour. christiane, president obama's political success has been defined by taking troops out of iraq, opposing the war in iraq. an interesting dilemma for him. >> a dilemma, yes and no. if the actual main priority of the united states, which he delineated in his own speech last week, is fighting terrorism, well, then this is it. things change. yes, he's ended the war, but things change. and is the better course of wisdom to allow a group of terrorists to take over a country, or is the better course

of wisdom to stop that? my sources have told me last week that they did not believe isis could take baghdad. nonetheless, what isis has taken is a part of iraq that has joined up with a part of syria, and that is a massive, massive problem. and all the military and political sources i've spoken to says that provides a massive threat to all the region and to america itself as well as its allies. >> michael crowley, "time" magazine's chief foreign affairs correspondent, president obama said he doesn't oppose all wars. here's president obama right now. let's listen. >> i just met with my national security team to discuss the situation in iraq. wooe be we've been meeting regularly to review the situation since the terrorist organization made advances inside of iraq. as i said last week, isil poses a threat to the iraqi people, to the region, and to u.s.

interests. so today i want to provide you an update on how we're responding to the situation. first, we are working to secure our embassy and personnel operating inside of iraq. as president, i have no greater priority than the safety of our men and women serving overseas. so i've taken some steps to relocate some of our embassy personnel, and we've sent reinforcements to better secure our facilities. second, at my direction, we have significantly increased our intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets so that we've got a better picture of what's taking place in the side iraq, giving us a greater understanding of what isil is doing, where it's located and how we might counter the threat. third, the united states will continue to increase our support to iraqi security forces. we're prepared to create joint operations centers in baghdad and northern iraq to share intelligence and coordinate planning to confront the terrorist threat of isil.

through our new counterterrorism partnership fund, we're prepared to work with congress to provide additional equipment. we have had advisers in iraq through our embassy, and we're prepared to send a small number of additional american military advisers, up to 300, to assess how we can best train, advise and support iraqi security forces going forward. american forces will not be returning to combat in iraq. but we will help iraqis as they take the fight to terrorists who threaten the iraqi people, the region and american interests as well. fourth, in recent days we've positioned additional u.s. military assets in the region. because of our increased intelligence resources, we're developing more information about potential targets associated with isil. and going forward, we will be prepared to take targeted and precise military action if and when we determine that the situation on the ground requires it.

if we do, i will consult closely with congress and leaders in iraq and in the region. i want to emphasize, though, that the best and most effective response to a threat like isil will ultimately involve partnerships where local forces like iraqis take the lead. finally, the united states will lead a diplomatic effort to work with iraqi leaders and the countries in the region to support stability in iraq. at my direction, secretary kerry will depart this weekend for meetings in the middle east and europe where he'll be able to consult with our allies and partners. and just as all iraqis' neighbors must respect iraq's territo territories, it must ensure that it does not fall into a civil war or become a safe haven for terrorists. above all, iraqi leaders must rise above their differences and come together around a political

plan for iraq's future. shia, sunni, kurds, all iraqis must have confidence that they can advance their interests and aspirations through the political process rather than through violence. national unity meetings have to go forward to build consensus across iraq's different communities. now that the results of iraq's recent election has been certified, a new parliament should convene as soon as possible. the formation of a new government will be an opportunity to begin a genuine dialogue and forge a government that represents the legitimate interests of all iraqis. now, it's not the place for the united states to choose iraq's leaders. it is clear, though, that only leaders that can govern with an inclusive agenda are going to be able to truly bring the iraqi people together and help them through this crisis. meanwhile, the united states will not pursue military options that support one sect inside of iraq at the expense of another. there's no military solution

inside of iraq, certainly not one that is led by the united states. but there is an urgent need for an inclusive political process, a more capable iraqi security force and counterterrorism efforts that deny groups like isil a safe haven. in closing, recent days have reminded us of the deep scars left by america's war in iraq. alongside the loss of nearly 4,500 american patriots, many veterans carry the wounds of that war and will for the rest of their lives. here at home, iraq sparked big risk debates and intense emotions in the past, and we've seen some of those debates resurface. but what's clear from the last decade is the need for the united states to ask hard questions before we take action abroad. particularly military action. the most important question we should all be asking, the issue that we have to keep front and center, the issue that i keep

front and center, is what is in the national security interests of the united states of america? as commander in chief, that's what i stay focused on. as americans, that's what all of us should be focused on. and going forward, we will continue to consult closely with congress. we will keep the american people informed. we will remain vigilant, and we will continue to do everything in our power to protect the security of the united states and the safety of the american people. so with that i'm going to take a couple of questions. i'll start with colleen mccain nelson of "the wall street journal." >> thank you, mr. president. do you have any confidence in prime minister maliki at this point? and can maliki bring political stability to iraq? >> as i said, it's not our job to choose iraq's leaders. part of what our patriots fought for during many years in iraq was the right and the

opportunity for iraqis to determine their own destiny and choose their own leaders. but i don't think there's any secret that right now, at least, there is deep divisions between sunni, shia and kurdish leaders. and as long as those deep divisions continue or worsen, it's going to be very hard for an iraqi central government to direct an iraqi military to deal with these threats. and so we've consulted with prime minister maliki, and we've said that to him privately. we've said it publicly. that whether he is prime minister or any other leader aspires to lead the country, that it has to be an agenda in which sunni, shia and kurd all feel that they have the opportunity to advance their interests through the political process. and we've seen, over the last two years, actually dating back

to 2008, 2009, but i think worse over the last two years, the sense among sunnis that their interests were not being served, that legislation that had been promised around, for example, debaathification had been stalled. i think that you hear similar complaints that the government in baghdad has not sufficiently reached out to some of the tribes and been able to bring them into a process that, you know, gives them a sense of being part of a unity government or a single-nation state. and that has to be worked through. part of the reason why we saw better equipped iraqi security forces with larger numbers not

be able to hold contested territory against isil probably reflects that lack of -- a sense of commitment on the part of sunni communities to work with baghdad. and that has to be fixed if we're going to get through this crisis. jim acosta. >> thank you, mr. president. americans may look at this decision that you're making today as a preview of coming attractions. that the number of advisers that you're planning to send in may just be the beginning of a boots on the ground scenario down the road. why is iraq's civil war and the national security interests of the united states, and are you concerned about the potential for mission creep? >> i think we always have to guard against mission creep. so let me repeat what i've said in the past. american combat troops are not going to be fighting in iraq

again. we do not have the ability to simply solve this problem by sending in tens of thousands of troops and committing the kinds of blood and treasure that has already been expended in iraq. ultimately, this is something that is going to have to be solved by the iraqis. it is in our national security interests not to see an all-out civil war inside of iraq. not just for humanitarian reasons but because that ultimately can be destabilizing throughout the region and in addition to having strong allies there that we are committed to protecting, obviously issues like energy and global energy markets continues to be important. we also have an interest in making sure that we don't have a safe haven that continues to

grow for isil and other extremist jihadist groups who could use that as a base of operations for planning and targeting ourselves, our personnel overseas, and eventually the homeland. if they accumulate more money, they accumulate more ammunition, more military capability, larger numbers, that poses great dangers not just to allies of ours like jordan, which is very close by, but it also poses, you know, a great danger potentially to europe and ultimate i will the united states. we have already seen inside of syria that groups like isil that right now are fighting with other extremist groups or an assad regime that was nonresponsive to a sunni majority there, that that has

attracted more and more jihadists or would-be jihadists, some of them from europe. they then start traveling back to europe and that, over time, can create a cadre of terrorists that could harm us. we have humanitarian interests in preventing bloodshed. we have strategic interests in stability in the region. we have counterterrorism interests. all of those have to be addressed. the initial effort for us to get situational awareness through the reconnaissance and surveillance that we've already done coupled with some of our best people on the ground doing assessments of exactly what the situation is, starting, by the way, with the perimeter around baghdad and making sure that that's not overrun, that's a good investment for us to make.

but that does not put -- that does not foreshadow a larger commitment of troops to actually fight in iraq. that would not be effective in meeting the core interests that we have. >> just real quickly, do you wish you had left a residual force in iraq? any regrets about that decision in 2011? >> keep in mind, that wasn't a decision made by me. that was a decision made by the iraqi government. we offered a modest residual force to help continue to train and advise iraqi security forces. we had a core requirement which we require in any situation where we have u.s. troops overseas, and that is that they are provided immunity, since they are being invited by the sovereign government there, so that if, for example, they end up acting in self-defense, if they are attacked and find

themselves in a tough situation, that they're not somehow called before a foreign court. that's a core requirement that we have for u.s. troop presence anywhere. the iraqi government and prime minister maliki declined to provide us that immunity. and so i think it is important, though, to recognize that despite that decision, that we have continued to provide them with very intensive advice and support and have continued throughout this process over the last five years to not only offer them our assistance militarily, but we've also continued to urge the kinds of political compromises that we think are ultimately necessary in order for them to have a functioning multisectarian

democracy inside the country. juliet. juliet alpern. >> you just mentioned syria a moment ago. the united states has been slow to provide significant weapons and training directly to the syrian opposition. is the expansion of the syria war into iraq changed your mind about the type of weapons and training we are now willing to give the opposition there, is that what prompted secretary kerry to say to syria, we are augmenting our assistance in significant ways, and can you elaborate on what you are doing now? >> you know, that assessment about the dangers of what was happening in syria have existed since the very beginning of the syrian civil war. the question has never been whether we thought this was a serious problem. the question has always been, is there the capacity of moderate opposition on the ground to absorb and counteract extremists

that might have been pouring in as well as an assad regime supported by iran and russia that outmanned them and was ruthless? and so we have consistently provided that opposition with support. oftentimes the challenge is if you have former farmers or teachers or pharmacists who now are taking up opposition against a battle-hardened regime with support from external actors that have a lot at stake, how quickly can you get them trained? how effective are you able to mobilize them? and that continues to be a challenge. and even before the situation that we saw with isil going into

iraq, we had already tried to maximize what we can do to support a moderate opposition that not only can counteract the brutality of assad, but also can make sure that in the minds of sunnis, they don't think that their only alternative is either mr. assad or extremist groups like isil. >> and can you speak to what you might be doing as the secretary of state alluded to? >> i think that the key to both syria and iraq is going to be a combination of what happens inside the country, working with moderate syrian opposition, working with an iraqi government that is inclusive, and us laying down a more effective counterterrorism platform that

gets all of the countries in the region pulling in the same direction. and i alluded to this in the west point speech. i talked about it today with respect to the counterterrorism partnership fund. there's we have to build and partner with countries that are committed to our interests, our values, and at the same time, we have immediate problems with terrorist organizations that may be advancing. rather than rye to play whack-amole wherever these terrorism places build up we have to build effective partnerships and make sure they have the capacity, some of the assets that have been devoted solely to afghanistan over the

last decade, we to shift to make sure we have coverage in the middle southeast and north africa. you look at a country like yemen, a very impoverished country, and one that has its own sectarian or ethnic divisions, will is -- we do have a committed partner and we have been able to help to develop their capacities without putting large numbers of u.s. troops on the ground. at the same time as we got muff c.t., counterterrorism capabilities, we able to go after folks that may try to hit our embassy or might be trying to export terrorism in a europe or the united states. and looking at how we can create more of those models is going to be part of the solution in dealing with syria and iraq. in order for us to do that, we

still maid to have actual governments on the ground that we can partner with. and we have some confidence that we are going to pursue the political policies and inclusive must in yemen, for example, that a wide-ranging national dialogue that took a long time but help give people is a sense that will is a legitimate political outlet for grievances that they may have. >> going back to where you see prime minister al maliki playing a role at this point, you said that it is a time to rise above differences. there is a more inclusive government. is he a unifier? how much clout does the united states have with the leaders in iraq at this point really? >> well, we still provide them significant assistance. i think had recognize that unlike some other players in the region, we don't have

territorial ambitions in their country. we are month looking to control their assets or their energy. we want to make sure we are vindicating the enormous effort and sacrifice made by our troops in giving them an opportunity to build a stable, inclusive society that can possiblefer and deliver for the basic needs and aspirations of the iraqi people. at the same time, they are a sovereign country. they have their own politics. and what we have tried to do is to give them our best advice about how they can solve their political problems now that they are in crisis, we are indicating to them that there is not going

to be a simple military solution to this issue. if you start seeing the various groups inside of iraq simply go to the respective corners, then it is almost certain that baghdad, central government will not be wabl to control huge chunks of their own country. the only way they can do that is if there are credible sunni leaders, both at the national level and at the local level, who have confidence that a shia majority, the kurds that -- all hose folks are committed to a fair and just governance of the country. right now that doesn't exist. there's too much suspicion and too much mistrust. and the good news is that an

election took place in which despite all of this mistrust, despite all of this frustration and anger, you still have millions of iraqis turn out. in some cases, in very dangerous circumstances. you now have a court that certified those elections and you have a constitutional process to advance a government formation. so far at least, the one -- bit of encouraging news we have seen inside of iraq is that all the parties said had continue to be committed to choosing a leadership and a government through the existing constitutional order. so what you are seeing, i think, is as the prospects of civil war heighten, many rock leaders stepping back and saying let's

not plunge back into the abyss. let's see if we can resolve this politically. they don't have a lot of time you have a group like isil doing everything it can to descend the country back into chaos. one of the messages we have from prime minister al maliki but also for the speaker of the house and, you know the other leadership inside of iraq is get going on this government formation. it will make it a lot easier for hem to shape a mill area strategy. it will also make it possible porous to partner. much more effectively than we can currently. >> can the prime minister play that role after what we have seen play out over the last couple of weeks? >> yeah. i think the test is before him and other iraqi leaders as we speak.

they can make a series of decisions. regardless of what's happened in the past, right now is a moment where the fate of iraq thanks in the balance and the test for all of them is going to be whether had can overcome the mistrust, deep sectarian divisions, in some cases just political opportunism and say that this is bigger than any one of us and we have to make sure that we do what's right for the iraqi people and that's a challenge. here's not something the united states can do for them. that's not something, by the way, the united states armed forces can do for them. we can provide them the space. we can provide them the tools but ult patly they are going to have to make those decisions. in the meantime, my job is to make sure that american personnel there are safe. that we are consulting with the

iraqi security forces and we are getting a better assessment of what is on the ground and that we are recognizing the dangers of isil over the long term and developing the kinds of comprehensive counterterrorism strategies we will need to deal with this issue. that's going to involve some short-term responses to make sure that isil is not obtaining capacity to endanger us directly oral ice and partners. it also will require long-term strategy as well. it is a broader trend that i talked about at west point. rather than a single network, discreet network of terrorists,

this fluid combination of hardened terrorists p. disaffected local leadership, and where will's vacuums. they are filling it and creating the potential for, you know, serious danger for all concerned. all right. >> any words on what you are willing to do -- >> our view is iran can play a constructive role if it is helping to send the same message to the iraqi government we are sending which is that iraqi only holds together if it is inclusive. and that if the interests of sunni, shia and kurd are all respected. if iran is coming in solely as

an armed force on behalf of the shia and if it is playing in that fashion, then that probably wors worsens the situation and the prospect for the government formation that would actually be constructed by over the long term. >> what's your sense of that right now? >> you know, i think that just as iraq's lead verse to make decisions, i think iran has heard from us. we have indicated to them that it is important for them to avoid steps that might encourage the kind of sectarian splits that might lead to civil war. and, you know, the -- the one thing that i think is, you know, has to be emphasized we have deep difference was iran across the board on the whole host of issues. obviously what's happened