spokesperson rear admiral john kirby. and the strikes are meant to target isis's ability to command, resupply, and to train. president barack obama being updated as he gets -- and he has notified congress on this. we're going to get now straight to cnn's jim sciutto, who is in washington. also jim acosta joining us from washington as well. gentlemen, thank you for joining us this evening. the information is coming in. jim sciutto, at first there were three nation states that we heard about, all arab states. now we're hearing about five. this is particularly significant because? >> reporter: no question. because you heard in recent days secretary of state john kerry, president obama talking about how they wanted to internatio l internationalize this effort, make it u.s.-led perhaps, but to have important partners in the region. and now you have five in the region taking part tonight in at least three of them, i'm told, in kinetic activity. that is, dropping bombs tonight, not just support flights, refueling flights, or

surveillance. all important. but actually attacking isis targets alongside u.s. warplanes. that's an extremely significant event. and that shows that the obama administration reached one of their goals with this campaign. some more details about tonight's strikes for our viewers who are just joining us. they began with tomahawk missiles launched from sea. they continued with fighters and bombers and drones as well. striking targets that are meant to be key to command and control i'm told of isis as well as resupplying and training. so we're talking about training camps, barracks, places wlaerdship might have been hiding as well as weapons depots, ammunition depots. the strikes so far in iraq have been relatively small bore. a convoy here and there. some fighters grouped in other places. these meant to be more fixed targets. and i'm told the wave of strikes tonight while certainly not the end of this air campaign, just the beginning, the wave of strikes tonight intended to be a

very decisive, intense first step, perhaps a shock and awe 2.0 looking back to 2003. granted, on a smaller skam than we saw in iraq. but intended to be a very decisive blow. and with that participation from arab nations on the ground. we're going to see a lot more of this in coming days. 13 days after the president made that momentous speech to the nation saying he was going to order steps including air strikes in syria. here we see them in very intense fashion. >> and of course we should mention the president will be in town here in new york tomorrow meeting with the united nations to discuss this and to discuss isis. >> let's bring in jim acosta now in washington. do we know what's going on inside the white house, jim? >> well, right now it's pretty dark over at the white house, which is why i'm sitting here in the studio in our d.c. bureau. they don't even allow reporters to be on air at the white house at this hour. and most of the press staff has gone home. they're letting the department of defense and centcom do the

talking and this show of air power not only by the u.s. but by these arab partners do the talking. and i just wanted to add a couple of things to what jim sciutto and everybody else has been talking about. one of those things, it is very important to see what is in that john kirby statement this evening, that this decision was made by centcom commanders under organization given to them by the president. one thing that has been relayed to us by senior administration officials over the last several days is that the president has given these military commanders the green light to conduct these air strikes in both iraq and syria, that they don't need to call the president every time they want to launch air strikes. this is the mission. the mission has been laid out. and now they have the green light to go ahead and do this. and by the way, now that they have these coalition partners i think we're going to be seeing more of this over the coming days. the other fascinating part of all of this is this comes at a sensitive diplomatic time. you meachinationed the presiden is going to be at the united

nations later this week. this is a time sensitive target, that perhaps if they didn't strike tonight the target of opportunity might not be there in a week from now. but i'm told by a senior u.s. official that this was not a time-sensitive target, that these are hard targets, critically important buildings in raqqa, that they this herr sights set on it, so they decided to take out these targets. but it does set up a very interesting scenario with some drama i think for later on this week, don and alisyn, when the president sits down with the u.n. security council on this subject of isis, having conducted these air strikes. and now both of these countries with a coalition that is growing. the president is going up to new york to try to build on that coalition, make it bigger, get some of these countries that are perhaps sitting on the fence a little bit to make a commitment. and to have these arab countries come forward and say yes, we'll be part of this coalition, that will only bolster his case and strengthen his hand i think. >> i want to ask jim sciutto something. jim, syrian opposition official

talking to you said this to you -- thank god, thank god, what a momentous day. what else did he tell you if anything? >> he told me just -- i think you see in those comments, it was quite a long answer to my question. how did he react to this? but full of that kind of emotion. thank god, we've been waiting for this for so long. but also saying in his statement that they know this is the beginning, this is just the beginning of what's going to be a protracted campaign against isis because he makes the point, as u.s. officials have made the point, that the air campaign is just a component and you need an element on the ground. that element on the ground is the moderate syrian opposition, rebel fighters. another key part of the strategy is training those fighters. and we've heard from military officials in recent days that the goal is to train 5,000 of them and that the training of that 5,000 might take as long as a year. we've got a campaign starting tonight. that's very intense. you can imagine some progress tonight. but the ground component that everyone agrees is necessary to gain back territory from isis

inside syria, take away some of the safe haven, that's going to be a long time coming. and even at the end of that process, which could take as long as a year, you'll have 5,000 fighters. we heard from intelligence, u.s. intelligence officials in the last week that the estimate, the new higher estimate of the total isis fighting strength is 20,000 to 31,500. so this is just the first step. it's going to be a long fight. the syrian opposition knows that. it's something the american public has to prepare for that as intense as the strikes are this evening this is just the beginning. it's going to take some time. one other thought i might just add in terms of regional participation in this. while you have those five arab countries taking part which is significant, saudi arabia, united arab emirates, jordan, qatar, and bahrain, two countries in the region not taking part -- one, turkey. nato ally. lots of sensitivities there but certainly would be a vital partner if they chose to take part. but two also, of course, syria.

syria had said before this campaign started that the u.s. must ask for syrian permission. syrian officials had even offered to cooperate with the u.s. against i.c.e. the u.s. said we're not going to cooperate with syria, we're not even going to let them know when this is happening. it's interesting to think, don and alisyn, that going forward one entity that may very well profit from the u.s. and arab strikes against isis frankly is the government of basher al assad. because remember, while the u.s. government is against basher al assad, so is isis. so as you hit isis you conceivably give an advantage to basher al assad in this ongoing three-year-old civil war inside syria. it just shows the great intensity and complexity of this conflict. one last detail i can add is i'm told that f-22, the f-22 raptor, which is a u.s. fighter bomber, was scheduled to take part in tonight's air strikes. that would be the first time the f-22, a very advanced stealth aircraft, has been used in combat operations. it's been a very troubled

weapons program, took forever to get to theater, had a lot of cost overruns, some other questions and problems. so we'd be seeing the f-22 in action for the first time tonight. >> reportedly f-22, b-1 bombers, f-16s, f-15s, fa-18s and on, and then the aircraft carriers as well. jim sciutto, thank you very much. >> our military panel's ears perked up when they heard raptor. so let's bring in retired lieutenant colonel james reese, ceo of tiger swan and a former delta force commander. lieutenant colonel rick franc a francona, cnn military analyst and former u.s. military attache in syria and lieutenant general mark hertling, cnn military analyst and former commanding general u.s. army europe and 7th army. this is a wealth of experience that we have and it seems to play perfectly for tonight. general, i'll start with you. what jumps out at you from all the reports we've heard of our breaking news tonight? >> just the establishment of a package from multiple arab nations to conduct this operation. >> that's really the big thing. >> it really is.

this is significant. and it's more than just the strike packages, don. the aircraft you mentioned are the ones that are going to be sitting the target. but there is many more. i would suggest there's hundreds of airplanes taking part in this. not only the surveillance planes by the awacs, the fuelers, the counter air defense aircraft. all of those things were part of this coalition fight, and they all came from the multiple countries that are involved. that's huge. and i think as we keep going back to the analogy of what's going to happen when we wake up tomorrow morning the key thing is a lot of arab nations are going to be saying we've contributed to a fight against an extremist terrorist organization, they are not what we want. >> is that going to make a difference, though, that it's all arab nations and the united states? will that make a difference to people? >> i actually think it was purposeful, to be honest with you. i think there were probably some nato nations that wanted to participate in tonight but i

think this is an arab show. >> i think this is great for the arab community. i know lots and lots of iraqis and everyone in the whole levant area that we work with through the years and they're just like us. they're fathers and mothers who have children, who want to go to school, have a job, put a roof over their head. it's nothing different. i think this will be a very proud moment for them that they're taking the lead on this. >> not to oversell p but this could actually be an inflection point. this is a point where the arab world says we have had so much of this terrorism, so much of this abomination of a peaceful religion, that the fact that people are standing up, this could very well be more than just the campaign in syria. this could be something bigger. >> colonel francona, do you agree? >> yeah, i do, absolutely. it's critical we have this coalition. you made a very good point earlier, jim. you said we've smacked the bully in the nose and we've got their

attention. the strikes in iraq didn't do that. they were pinprick. they were aimed at a defensive measure. now we're going after them offensively. we're hitting them where they live. we're hitting fixed strategic targets. this is good because most of these people -- and some of them have, but most of these people have never experienced air power and they've never experienced american air power. i think it's going to be a big wake-up call because they no longer are going to realize that they're not ten feet tall. >> you said we hadn't smacked them in the nose because they were the bullies and now tonight you're saying we have -- >> i think we hit them with a two-by-four. >> jim sciutto's comment about there being 20,000 to 30,000 of these individuals, it's interesting. we can debate that. but again, i go back to the point there are 11 million people in northern and western iraq and in syria that don't want these 20,000 to 30,000 people. and it goes back to what jim sciutto's saying. the majority of great arabs

we've worked with, they just want to send their kids to school, run a business and have a peaceful life. >> of course. >> i want to make sure we don't make the same mistake we did in 2003, that we'd be greeted as liberateors. the arab street -- we didn't understand how we were going to be met. but you all are uniformly saying that you believe the arab street when they wake up and hear this breaking news that they will be okay with it because it's fighting isis. >> i don't know. we'll see. and that's a key question. >> and that's a strategy you believe that's behind this, right? >> because as i said, i think there's a big difference in many mu of these governments and the people. we'll know this fairly soon. >> there's the f-22 raptors right there that we have a picture. i think it's important when you talk about the arab street and how this may be perceived that we thought oh, liberators, back

in 2003. but you said you believe that is the strategy. other nations may have wanted to get on board, but they said no because they wanted to send a message. >> there was a great article in the "new york times" this weekend that talked about some people in baghdad saying hey, the united states are just doing what they've always done. and in fact it's the cia who's built up isis. they're trying to keep the arab population down. the very fact that we have moderate arab countries coming to the assistance and actually leading the charge in this is going to make all the difference in the world in my view. >> i think jim sciutto talked about this. but jim sciutto, are you there? >> yes, i'm here. >> bashar al assad, any type of -- did we give him warning? >> no. in fact, the u.s. said no warning, no coordination whatsoever despite the fact his government, his spokesperson on cnn's air said that syria would be willing to partner in some way with the u.s. against isis because syria also considers isis an enemy, and it is.

but the u.s. said no we will not coordinate with syria. remember, there's another country that there had been talk of coordination with against isis and that's of course iran. where there's much better -- at least diplomatic relationship, very important nuclear negotiations under way with iran. but even with iran the u.s. has said no coordination with iran against i.c.e. targets. although we know iran has been helping kurdish peshmerga against isis fighters just as the u.s. has. there was a moment today when both secretary of state john kerry and the iranian deputy foreign minister speaking at the u.n. almost word for word described the isis threat. both of them saying isis is not islam, it's not a state. and it was interesting to see the u.s. and iran. while the u.s. is certainly not cooperating with syria here, the u.s. and iran at least publicly both stating their opposition to isis and their intention to push back and fight against isis. isis is a very unusual threat in

that it is uniting very disparate forces in the region in a common cause, and that includes the largely sunni nations that are taking part alongside u.s. air strikes tonight with, say, a shia country like iran against this group. it's just remarkable because it shows how severe a threat all these countries consider the islamic state. >> yes, that is notable. jim, stand by for a second because i want to bring in colonel francona. you know syria very well. you were the attache to syria. so how does assad react to this? >> well, publicly of course he says you can't do this without coordination, this is an act of aggression against the syrian people. and so on. but in reality he's thinking this is a good thing, this helps me. >> so he does nothing. >> no. and i think he would be foolish to try to interfere with any of these air strikes. >> it helps him. >> it helps him because we're taking out one of the threats to

his regime. and if we destroy isis, which we're committed to do, that takes one player off the table. in fact, that takes the biggest player off the table. and all he has to worry about is the smaller less effective al qaeda in syria, al-nusra, and the free syrian army, both of whom he has bested in the past couple of years thanks to the if iranians and hezbollah. this is a plus for bashar al assad. >> and remember this was not a full spectrum operation tonight. it was a single spectrum. now what we have to do is everyone's doing high fives around the world about this but now we have the economic aspects of national power whether it's the u.s.'s or other arab countries that we can't bring these together. there's no one on the ground to close with and destroy the enemy. >> and you're going to talk to three military guys who've been waiting this for the last 15

years or so. and all three of us i think are in agreement when we say the diplomatic, the informational, and the economic peace are much more important than what happened tonight in the military piece. >> you said that turkey has to be involved, you don't believe they'll have any other option once the president comes to the u.n. and starts to try to establish more coalition presence, correct? or involvement. >> they have to. there's a lot of other things they can do other than just military action. they've bought a great intelligence piece they could be doing. they have a huge refugee problem on the border. turkey could be on the back side but giving us some good intelligence also. >> the reason i brought it up, because we want to get to arwa damon, right? >> she's in turkey. she is close to the syrian border. arwa, tell us how you think people where you are will react this morning when they wake up and hear the breaking news the air strikes have begun. >> reporter: well, there's probably going to be a varied

reaction because there is a lot of wariness when it comes to exactly what it is that the u.s. and this arab coalition's intentions really are. it was very critical for the u.s. to bring arab nations on board because isis is definitely going it try to play this as the u.s., the crusaders trying to target the muslims and use this as a recruiting tool to bring in even more foreign fighters. they had a recent audiotape trying to urge people to carry out attacks across the globe. so a lot of people on the one hand are going to say yes, finally the u.s. and its allies are taking action inside syria but there is this understanding across the entire region that this is not a battle that is going to be won by air strikes alone. a lot of these nations currently part of the coalition to include saudi arabia are also some of the countries that have been accused of allowing isis to thrive and exist, indirectly supporting it. and some of the other groups that are inside syria that then

ended up defecting and allying themselves with isis. another key thing too is to bring in these various religious clerics whose ideology, the wahabi ideology really emerging from countries like saudi arabia and egypt to be a key voice at this stage to try to urge young youths, whether they are westerners or arabs, not to join isis, not to perceive this as being the west versus the muslim world, the infidels ver vert true believers and use this as a tool to recruit even more. also important to point out at this stage is these tarring t t u.s. is going after. they split up operating in smaller pockets. the leadership al baghdadi according to some analysts that have been watching his movements very closely, only surrounding himself by a few select

individuals. and a lot of the isis fighters do remain embedded within the civilian top laigss inside raqqa and in various other parts that may be potential air strike locatio locations. there's going to be a lot of opinions out there most certainly on the arab street but not necessarily this overarching perspective of wow, look at what america its allies are doing, they've come to save us from this threat. a lot of wariness will be out there for sure as well. >> i want to go to peter beinart and also fran townsend. fran, i got a question from you. this came from jim acosta. i don't know if jim is still around. of course the president is being updated on the operations. law enforcement told cnn this. that there is no actionable intelligence, trance, to suggest any terrorist strike or planned attack against the u.s. home wland that is in the works. but there's always a fear that there will be some sort of response to strikes like this. and on the homeland.

>> that's right, don. often we don't have specific intelligence before an attack. whether that's the underwear bomber, the computer cartridge bomber. they are aware of nothing at this time, and that can change. our intelligence services and our foreign intelligence allies will be particularly focused on looking to identify any potential threats. let me say something about the coalition. jim reported if was jordan, saudi arabia and the emirates participating in military action but you also heard about these two other nations, qatar and bahrain. let's remember what assets we've got there. qatar has a major american air base there. you can expect that their participation is permitting planes to take off and land, that may be providing support or some sort of activity in this campaign. the second is in bahrain there's navcen, the naval component of

central command. you heard about one of the first strikes came from a tomahawk missile, a sea-based asset. bahrain is the major naval u.s. presence in the region. and that's another way that they may very well be participating, allowing us to use navcen. you're going to have a coalition of the willing and be able in the willing that they're able to do it. alisyn earlier asked what's one of these things you may see tomorrow and this week in these arab nation when's they wake up and realize their governments are actually participating militarily in this campaign? and one of the things we've seen saudi arabia and the imams who have great influence because it is the land of the two holy mosques in saudi arabia, the imams have issued statements supportive of the government's efforts to fight groups like isis and terrorism more generally. you can expect you will see statements from the grand mufti of the moss nic mecca, make a statement in support of the

government's efforts and there will be sermons given at the friday services, all to make sure that the population understands that there is a religious basing to the decisions taken by the saudi government and supporting the saudi government's actions. >> that's interesting, fran. so you think, you agree with our military panel that generally the arab street will be happy or relieved about this action. but our military panel has warned that one of the things isis may do is sort of blend into the civilian population, take a page from hezbollah and hamas, and begin hiding themselves, their leaders, their equipment in the civilian population. and obviously, if that were to happen and more civilians were to be caught in the crossfire, things could change. >> absolutely. and i wasn't saying they'll be happy. i think the arab governments that are participating militarily will go to the trouble, go to the effort to try to explain what they've done, why they've done it, and garner

the support of religious conservatives in the country in an effort to persuade the populations to support the decisions they've taken. >> and they've already been moving equipment and hiding because they've been anticipating this, correct? >> i think the reason they were out in the open for such a long time is because they could be. i mean, that's part of the adjustment to any kind of tactical campaign. they were freewheeling around the area with some stolen weapons, some stolen equipment, but now they've realized again, they've received this blow in the face. now they've got to go back undercover. i think that might contribute to -- it's the same sort of thing that we saw with al qaeda in the 2007 and '08 period, when the population pushback, there was this momentum that generated that not only they were being struck by military forces but the population was standing up and there were indicators in parts of syria and iraq that the population might stand up against these guys. >> i want to ask -- is arwa till

with us? because she's on the syrian-turkish -- arwa, might we hear from atayyip resin erdogan, the president? >> we might at this stage. there's been a lot of speculation and discussion as to why turkey's not been more active in all of this and the government's rationale for that has been the fact that up until this weekend isis had 49 turk, hostages in their country. they were released at some point over the weekend. we did hear from the turkish president on sunday saying now they'll be at liberty to join this coalition to perhaps be more aggressive. we also know from an individual who says he was acting as a key leader in one of the smuggling rings to help foreign fighters cross the turkish border to try to get into syria, try to join the ranks of isis, saying they had made that a bit more difficult. turkey certainly can play a critical and vital role in all of this moving forward. but again, it's going to be all

about perception and what it is that these air strikes do end up hitting and how this is all playing out. because look, the syrian opposition inside syria as we know for so well has been calling for some sort of international action. they've been wanting to see these kinds of air strikes taking place. but early on, years ago, against the regime of bashar al assad. and many people will be waking up tomorrow and saying okay, it's great the u.s. and its allies are taking this kind of action right now against isis, but had this kind of decisive action taken place earlier, had there been more pressure put on the regime of bashar al assad, perhaps more pressure put on some of assad's key allies like iran and russia, we would not be reaching the stage where we're at right now where we have an extremist group that is so far forward in the way it decides to implement its interpretation of islam. they would not have been allowed to exist and thrive in syria if the kind of action that we're seeing taking place right now had taken place years ago. >> stand by, arwa.

>> we want to bring in peter beinart right now. peter, tell us your impressions of everything you've been hearing tonight. >> well, it's a remarkable diplomatic achievement. there wasn't -- i don't think it was expected that there would be this much arab support. so on the diplomatic front going into the u.n. meetings i think it puts the obama administration in a strong position. on the ground militarily i think it's a different question because we don't have the syrian moderate free syrian army rebels trained, that we've just begun to train in a more aggressive way, in a position to take this territory that we are pulverizing from the air. and so i think that makes it even more likely that the real winner from this is bashar al assad. and i also think it's worth mentioning, whether one cares about this particular thing or not, that i think most legal experts would say the obama administration does not actually have legal organization to do this. it was one thing to attack in iraq, where you had a government that wanted us to. but congress did not vote for

u.s. air strikes in syria. we don't have a government requesting us to do that. it's not an imminent threat to the united states. i think those are all things that are worth considering. >> and general, you heard -- >> i'd just say this is an imminent threat globally. and i think the actions of several nations coming together to attack this, yeah, i think it's just fortunate that it happened tonight. >> it's interesting to me -- >> with all due respect president obama in his own speech two weeks ago said it was not an imminent threat. he said there were no attacks being planned. he said it was a potential threat, a very grave potential threat, but he didn't call it an imminent threat. >> yeah. fran? >> fran townsend, do you believe this is an imminent threat to the homeland or is it just that it's time -- if isis were unchecked then who knows what havoc it would wreak? >> look, i think there are two -- when i think about the threat to the homeland i think about it in two different pieces. there's the foreign fighter threat that's 100, some of whom -- some large number of

whom are most likely to be killed on the battlefield, some of which you run the risk of them bleeding out. we don't know what confidence we ought to have in that number. so you've got to assume the number's larger than the 100 that the government is aware of. then you've got the sort of lone wolf. the audiotape released today about the spokesman of isis calling on individuals, lone wolves in the united states, france, and canada to launch attacks against civilians of all things. not only government officials or government installations. and you worry about that. very hard to detect because you don't have the opportunity to intercept them at the border that you had with the foreign fighters. and so both of these, the problem is you are unlikely to have much indication and warning, what we call in the intelligence business i & w, in advance that is sufficiently tactical to allow you to go after that threat. and so i do think the threatsale imminent. but i understand when the administration says that they don't have any indication or

warning now of an immediate imminent event. but i think you're unlikely to get that is the problem. >> thanks for claving all of that. let's bring in our military panel again. can we talk about what we have been mentioning in terms of arming the syrian rebels? it seems like that's -- we're many months away from that. them being prepared or us being able to train them adequately to take over some portion of this. >> if what i understand is we're going to train 5,000 of the free syrian army and it's going to take almost a year to do this and we're going to do it in saudi arabia, the logistics of that are just hard to imagine. and 5,000 is not a big enough number. >> and in a year who knows -- >> this could be over in a year. this part of it. the assad government could pretty much overwhelm the free syrian army in that period of time. so i'm hoping this 5,000 is more of a train the trainer, as we say in the military, where you train an initial cadre, they go

back and sipt their osand set u internal training and that multiflies the numbers. i'm not sure of the commitment from the free syrian army to fight isis. we know that there are agenda is really to overthrow the government of bashar assad. and when they go back to syria that's what they're going to focus on. >> i think it's interesting to watch you guys as we're interviewing other guests or we're in the commercial break and you're all getting information from your sources and you're looking at your phones and then you're shaking your head in agreement to what you're listening to. >> in amman, jordan right now our folks in amman say right now early reports are they're having very positive reports on this. no one's really talked about jordan in this. right now jordan -- there's iraq to the east. there's syria to the north. king abdullah was on "60 minutes" last night. 20% of their population are refugees out of syria. this is great for them. all right? because maybe one day these refugees will be able to go

home. jordan not an oil-based company. king abdullah, i saw him here today in new york. they're -- they're struggling. they're at their wits' end. so good reports from amman right now. >> the regions -- it's the saudis, the eliminate rats, the jordanians. all playing a role in this. who has the most at stake here outside the coalition? >> i think saudi arabia. i think from a population base saudi arabia. it's going to be a tough sell. primarily because a lot of the wahhabiist, salafist ideology comes from that particular country. >> the sunnis. >> and that's going to be a hard sell for the population base. >> and they are. saudi arabia is the caliphate. they are -- >> that's where mecca is. >> that's the central aspect of the muslim faith right there in

saudi arabia. >> and the sell in saudi arabia may not be that hard because isis has publicly said they want to come in and zroib the qdestr, it's an idolatry. they said remove the house of saud, the saudi royal family. and if you look at the maps, isis puts out its own maps and they renamed saudi arabia. it's just now called the land of the two holy cities. so saudi arabia has a vested interest in making sure that this operation that they're involved in works. >> can i go back to what you said before about the training of the free syrian army? i think that's an important point. because we can't do everything simultaneously in this campaign. and i think from an old campaign planner standpoint you're sequencing operations. and not to get too technical about it. but i think the first issue was a strategic offensive strike in syria. the next piece will be a strategic defensive operation in

iraq to continue to push isis in that country. all the while we're training that initial tranche of free syrian fighters. so is it won't take an entire year to get them all back. it will come in sequenced packages. so you will have some free syrian army there much more quicker than the eight months to a year that john kirby mentioned in his press report. the whole package of 5,000, and i agree with rick, that's not a very big package. but there's the potential for growing momentum. just about the same time where isis is beginning to suffer some significant -- >> we've been talking, i just want to update our viewers because they may have come in in the middle of the conversation. but in case you're just joining us, air strikes on isis in syria. the pentagon announcing that just maybe about two hours ago. those strikes were ordered, or at least approved, ordered by the commander in chief, president barack obama. we're told that the president is being advised or getting information on this throughout the evening but it is his

security team that is on top of this, that is leading this, centcom leading this. want to get to cnn's becky anderson. becky anderson joins us from abu dhabi. she is in bahrain. becky, bahrain is one of the coalition forces that's involved in this. what are you hearing where you are? all right. no becky anderson. we'll get back to her. we'll get to cnn's jim sciutto now. jim, we talked about at first it was three and now five that we're hearing about. saudi arabia, united arab emirates, jordan, qatar -- or qatar and now bahrain. and we're going to get to our becky anderson in just a little bit, talk more about that. but this is significant as we've been hearing from every single military expert that we've had on the show and also from everyone in washington who has something to do with this. >> this is quite a show of force from arab partners who while they are very threatened by isis also have population that's have

very mixed feelings about u.s. military action in the region. it's interesting. as i heard the other guests talk about the initial excitement they're hearing from the ground in the region i remember being in the region in 2003 in may at the launch of the u.s. invasion and then when zam fell hearing from -- in march at the launch rather and then when he fell in april and may. and there were a lot of commentators in the region who were cheering saddam hussein's removal. and you had a lot of the newspaper editorial writers writing about how here you had the u.s. come in and very quickly in a matter of weeks remove a dictator that they'd been dreaming of removing for years, for decades. and praising the u.s. for that. but as we all remember, it didn't take long for that to turn around when you had great criticism from both the government and the arab street of what seemed to be an endless u.s. military occupation of iraq and all the violence that ensued. so that support, even if we do see it tomorrow and isis is a

great unifier of people against itself, even if you see that support very early on it's quite likely that people have very short fuses on this kind of thing, and that's something that the u.s. has to be sensitive to. that is one reason why the administration was extremely intent on getting these arab partners in this fight, so it was not seen purely as the u.s. and the west bombing another arab country. but you had the u.s. joining with arab nations against a common threat. >> i'm getting my cities confused. but anyway, becky anderson is in abu dhabi. >> let's go to becky. becky, tell us what you're hearing on the ground there. >> reporter: okay. so what we're hearing is that there are five arab nations involved in these efforts. and do remember in the past couple weeks it's been very difficult to pin down exactly who will raise their heads, raise their assets, and join this coalition of the willing.

so let's just go through what we know at this hour. we got saudi arabia. that's the largest and most influential of countries around here. they've helped the u.s. in efforts in the gulf before and it looks as if they're doing that again. they've also said they'll be training syrian moderates on the ground of course. going forward. the uae, where i am here, abu dhabi, the capital of the uae, this country is already hosting australian jets. we know that from about last week. jordan. that's an interesting country. that can provide an awful lot of intelligence. it's also one of the countries that is right in the firing line. the spillover from refugees, from iraq and from syria. and potential hits from isis. so an incredibly important country to be involved in this coalition of the willing. and then you've got bahrain.

so those are who you would expect to be involved. those are u.s. allies in the past and those you would expect to be involved in any moves going forward. then there's qatar. let's remember qatar. in this region part of the gcc. but there's been a real rift between the likes of the uae and saudi of late and qatar. qatar have been hosting the muslim brotherhood, political islam. that's something here in this region others are very, very frightened of. so they've sort of been left out in the cold to a certain extent to do things themselves where what we are hearing, we're not sure whether they're actually flying jets out of there. they have done in the past. they were part of the coalition of the willing in libya in 2011. so it may be flying their own jets or providing facilities for others but it seems they are involved. let's just go over who we believe isn't involved. at present. number one, turkey, a nato member. it was to a certain extent using

the excuse that isis was holding some 49 hostages until about 24 hours ago. very concerned, mr. erdogan had said, of getting involved with any fight against isis while those hostages were being held. they've been released. and we've begun to hear talk from the turkish government about setting up a syrian buffer zone. but at present no word on whether those bases in turkey could be used by anybody including the u.s. for outbound flights. then we've got two other countries in the region which we ought to allude to here. syria, bashar al assad clearly not involved, overtly at least, in this campaign. experts will tell you there have been back channels open to bashar al assad in syria, but as things stand at the moment no overt involvement. and then there is iran. the very big other influential player in this region. they have been active on the ground in iraq in providing

military equipment to the peshmerga and the iraqi forces who have been fighting against isis over the past month in the north of iraq. but as we know, and this may change, as the unga kicks off in new york, but as things stand at the moment americans say they won't be part of the coalition of the willing and even tehran said they have been asked by wash wark, not something wash has verified but they say they've been asked by washington. they say they won't get involved. >> becky, thank you verify. we need to get to washington. i want to get to cnn's jim sciutto. jim was reporting earlier from the white house. we've been getting information about the president being kept abreast of the situation that's happening in syria this evening but also centcom taking the lead, the president just being advised probably throughout the evening. getting periodic updates. >> that's right. the information we've been getting so far very much coming out of the defendant deposit. the white house, the national security council deferring to the defendant deposit for

details. keep in mind as much detail as the defense department has given us so far including the arab coalition fighting alongside the u.s. in this initial round of air strikes, they are being relatively mum because they want to make sure that all the pilots in these aircraft get home safely before they give more details. and as the sun begins to come up in syria in an hour or two we're expecting greater detail in fact from the defense department on exact number of assets used, planes, bombers, et cetera. missiles launched. number of strikes, number of targets that have been struck. we're expecting updates on that in about an hour or two hours' time as the sun comes up over there and those pilots return back to base and to aircraft and to aircraft carriers safely. >> okay, jim. we may be getting updates here on the set. you guys are working your devices awfully hard. are you checking with people? you have any new nuggets for us? >> well, again, i just heard

from baghdad. and one of the things we talked about this earlier tonight is isis has two legs. was really hit tonight hard in raqqa was the leg of the syrian piece. but remember now you've got this whole other element that's in north iraq and really spread down to just west of baghdad. >> but they're linked through baghdadi. he controls both of them. >> not as well as we think. he is in charge. but it's not like the communications we have from a standard military operation where he's talking in real time. but remember, if he is talking in real time we're probably hearing him. we're probably listening to him. so they know that through the years they've got to be very careful with their communications. but there are two legs of this piece. and the next thing now is really what comes next for us? >> what does? >> what comes next? the training of the free syrian army is not going to get there on time to go into raqqa and do a clearing mission and secure raqqa. that's not going to happen. the beauty, though, is because of the area this is, the geographical area, air power can

control this for a while. and every time they try to move some of these heavier pieces of equipment and everything we can go in there and smack them. >> what's a while? >> you know, a year. a year. yeah. air power can do some damage. >> but when you were talking about them melting into the civilian population after this, once they know air strikes are coming, then it gets much more complicated. >> but it also limits their capability too. they can't control as much when they melt into the civilian population. it's a dual-edged sword. yes, they are getting the protection, the so-called human shields, using the facilities against us in terms of a precision strike, but at the same time that limits their capability. and as jim just said, their communication capabilities are not the same as a more modern torres. >> can force. >> can i give you an update just so people get an idea of what's going on. we know these air strikes are being conducted, this information is coming from our sources on the ground.

power's been restored after multiple targets hit in raqqa, syria. power has been restored after air strikes hit multiple targets. in isis stronghold city of raqqa in northern city. activists reported that early hours on tuesday. a building in the government's compound, the post office and the recruitment center were among the buildings hit. again, according to activists. that's the report there. power went out in the city shortly after the air strikes hit but it has been restored in the past however and no word yet on casualties from the activist network. jim sciutto. sorry, go ahead. >> that's all on the northern edge of raqqa, that government area, the post office. that's on the northern edge of town. and then just north of that there's a big military installation. so i assume that that's where the target concentration will be. i wouldn't put much stock in the power coming back on because that is where the biggest hydroelectric power plants in syria are. so they've got a robust generation capability right there. >> plus when you go into a lot of middle eastern cities the technology associated with power generation is not the same as we

would have here where you have to regenerate power. if you have an explosion in the middle of the street it's going to knock out power for blocks around. >> jim sciutto, you want to add anything to that? >> i do. just as we look at the list of targets that activists on the ground are reporting, as you mentioned there, government's compound, a recruitment center, that fits in the categories we've been told by the pentagon that they were intending to strike tonight, those that comprise command and control, that also might involve resupplying and training. and there you have a recruitment center possibly used tore training fighters. one thought as well on raqqa. there were some analyst sites that did studies, particularly of the james foley beheading video, that based on google maps, satellite 345maps, and ot landmarks visible in that video that that beheading took place just outside of raqqa. the reason being that's what one of the likely locations where they kept their most prized detainees including james foley.

so just a thought there that that iconic video we saw where the american was beheaded took place very close to where the strikes are taking place tonight. just one point i would add, though, in terms of the limitations of air strikes on isis. we are six weeks now into the u.s. air campaign over iraq against isis, and while those air strikes coupled with a very robust ground force far different from what you're talking about in syria, you've got more than 100,000 kurdish fighters in iraq, some 200,000 iraqi fighters, although only about half of those have been judged to be good at their jobs frankly, at doing war fighting. but still, you have hundreds of thousands of ground partners in iraq and after six weeks of a u.s.-led air campaign over iraq you have not gained back any ground from isis. you've held them from baghdad. you've held them from erbil. you've helped protect the yazidis, other threatened minorities, but you haven't gained back any of that third of the country that was taken over

by isis. so even as you begin in syria now this very aggressive air campaign, that shows the limitations as to how quickly you push back isis in syria. remember, in syria you don't have anything close to the ground force that you have now in iraq. >> okay, jim. stand by. i know our military panel wants to add something to this. yes, colonel. >> jim's right about what's going on in iraq. that's the iraq leg of isis. but now remember, we just struck the safe haven where they've been planning, where they've been training, where these foreign fighters are coming in, and then moving them into iraq. so now if they do go to -- we do go to ground, if they do ge to ground now we've used the term we have neutral-used possibly for a time being the syrian side of isis. that's a good thing. because they cannot continue to reinforce the iraq piece. so that to me could be very positive. >> and i'd suggest in terms of the iraqi army that jim so rightly pointed out, there are a significant number, but as we've

seen with some of the desertions in the north i think across the iraqi army we have experienced a complete breakdown in leadership. it doesn't matter how many forces you have. if there's poor leaders and they don't know how to sink rah nooiz operations, and i think that's what our advisers are doing in both baghdad and erbil, that becomes critical. and we're just at the very beginning of that, of rebuilding that iraqi army and at the same time for the peshmerga, one of my contacts in the kurdish region has told me they were very concerned about their leadership too because they have not conducted the kind of conventional operations that we would hope for against isis because they haven't been trained in those things. they're great fighters, very brave. protecting the kurdish region. but this is something new to them as well. >> the question is as the president gets ready to go to visit the u.n. this week, how much will it help him to have five arab nations? >> huge. >> jim acosta.

everyone here is saying huge and nodding in agreement. >> i think it's very -- i think it's significant. i think it's more than what just about everybody in washington expected. and so that is a diplomatic victory for the administration. obviously, we're on the front end of all this. so we have to see how things develop. i think one other thing that has also gone well this evening, is we heard the president basically issue this threat about a week ago. it was confirmed by administration officials that if bashar al assad's forces were to interfere with these air strikes that were taking place or about to take place in syria that he should expect u.s. forces to go after his assets, his air defense assets. so that has not taken place, and so it appears bashar al assad did get that message. but one thing i do want to point out, and i just got this from a u.s. official, a senior u.s. official in the last several minutes, is that while raqqa is the center of activity tonight that other targets outside of raqqa are also being hit and

these air strikes are continuing. so even as we're talking right now, don and alisyn, this operation is ongoing, it may be ongoing for some time. and we're going to get the full scope of this as time develops. there have been other numbers thrown around as to the volume of air strikes but at this point i'm being told that is premature to attach a specific number to that because this is ongoing. but no question about it, getting back to the coalition. i think the president going into the united nations with this in hand definitely strengthens his position in terms of trying to broaden that coalition, which is what the white house really wants at this point. >> jim, stick around because i want to bring in colonel francona. you heard what jim acosta was saying there about bashar al assad. you do not believe he will interfe interfere. >> no, not at all. it makes no sense to interfere. in fact, i just got a tweet from a pro-syrian -- pro-syrian regime friend who lives now in beirut and he tells me that it's about time that we did something

about isis because president bashar needs our help. not exactly what the administration would want to hear. but that's the reaction of the syrian people. they're applauding this as well. so it makes no sense for the syrians to interfere because we're doing what they believe is their job. >> we're doing them a favor. gentlemen, you're all nodding. anything you want to add? general. >> not right now. >> peter beinart, i'm sure, who is never at a loss for words. did you expect, peter, such an aggressive action so soon? >> i mean, i think the conventional wisdom was that it would take longer. and so certainly i was surprised that there was such a ferocious response so early on. i think that, again, the big question is how does this part sync with the efforts on the ground? who do you expect is going to take this territory? and how do you deal with the

possibility that you're creating an environment in which you're going to have an empowered bashar assad? how does that change u.s. strategy? right now we're focused on isis, very understandably. but what happens if we find ourselves a few months down the road, a year down the road with the possibility of bashar assad seeming to be on the verge of being able to wipe out a whole series of other rebel groups in syria? how does that change our situation? we are now in the middle of this syrian civil war just as barack obama didn't want to be in and i think the consequences are unpredictable. >> you're talking about what you expect bashar al assad, how you expect him to respond. but how do you expect isis to respond with all this? >> well, i think it would be natural for isis to try to respond by starting to attack the sites in the west. the irony of this effort i think is that although i think there's a reasonable case to make that isis was a significant potential

threat to the united states and especially to western europe, by attacking isis so ferociously right now you probably speed up the short-term threat that isis represents. isis can't -- if it can't fight in the open in the same way anymore you end up in the short term making isis more what you fear, which is an organization that's going to start focusing its attacks on the west. again, that's ton say this was necessarily the wrong thing to do. isis might very well have gotten there anyway. but it potentially speeds up that transition, which is frightening for the united states. >> here's what you get with the five arab countries now involved. the one thing the u.s. does better than anyone is command, control, and synchronize and hunt. we can manhunt anyone. and we did it in iraq. we did it in afghanistan. we will -- we'll find you. >> we want to talk a little to you guys, a little bit longer but before we get to the top of the hour i just want to get quickly to jim sciutto and jim acosta. jim acosta, first to you. the first word that we may hear from the president tomorrow.

>> i will be surprised, i'll be shocked, don, if we don't hear from the president before he leaves for the united nations. of course he could make some sort of statement up in new york city. but he is scheduled to depart from the white house in the 10:00 hour tomorrow morning. we have no confirmed information from the white house at this point that he has any sort of statement on his schedule. but check those devices in the morning around 9:59 a.m. things may change. but you were just talking a few moments ago about assad and the potential for interference. i have just been told just to confirm this and lock this down from a senior u.s. official there's been no interference from bashar al assad's forces detected tonight. >> and jim sciutto, quickly, what might we hear from washington come morning? >> you're going to hear sometime in the middle of the night, morning syria time so, around 1:00, 2:00, 3:00 in the morning eastern time more details of exactly how many assets involved in this strike, how many targets struck. you're going to begin to see the

countries that took part, the other arab nations that took part put out their own official statements about how they took part and to what extent. and i think you're also going to hear from the pentagon just a reminder to folks that this is just the first night of what they expect to be a xlieng. and remember, this is a president who did not want to go to war in the middle east. in fact, he wanted to take america out of the middle eastern wars. and now tonight the u.s. is at war in not one but two countries, iraq and syria. >> i didn't mean to cut you off but you were in the middle of a thought. do you remember? sorry about that. >> final thoughts, gentlemen. >> i wanted to make sure i got that in to give our viewers a heads-up. >> you've been listening to all of our breaking news tonight about the air strikes in syria. what are your final thoughts? >> i just think everything we've reported tonight have been good things. there's nothing but positive that comes out of this. but i think we are in this for a long term.

and as you just mentioned, you kind of mentioned we're in two places, iraq and syria. no, we're in three. we're in afghanistan too. and we seem to have forgotten that we have a lot of american forces in harm's way tonight in a third country. this is a long-term product. and i think it's the president's view that he needs to take the countries that are in chaos and help bring a little bit more order to them. striking blows against terrorism is one way to do that. >> you actually said we're even at war here at home because it's a war against terrorism. >> for me personally i'm proud. as a former soldier who spent most of my military career in the middle east either fighting or training, all of us know several senior leaders in these countries that conducted tonight, i'm proud. it's nice to see smenls get up there with someone we have helped train over the years and get out there and fight and swing with us a little bit.

our diplomats are going to get involved. and to me the pr aspects that isis has been doing, here we come. we're coming after you now. and they're on the run. on the run. >> i think it's important that we do this. i think it's huge. i'll use that word again. that we have the five arab nations doing this with us. i think that really creates a real coalition. i think it's very important for the region, the future of the region. and i think -- i just want to -- as an airman i just want to say this is not -- we don't do this only at night. this will be an ongoing operation. and if we do this like we've done earlier operations those strikes will continue. we are not going to give these guys any rest. >> and how long do you think? from what we're seeing tonight in terms of that big operation. what does that look like? >> i think we'll try and keep up this ops tempo for at least mont a month, day and night. >> what i suggest in these kinds of operations, unlike world war

i, world war ii, there isn't a win date where you say it's over. the big thing we used to say is gaining. every day you have to gain. and today was a huge gain. >> there will be no at least we think, no mission accomplished, no -- >> i sure the hell hope not. we've made that mistake. >> no one wants to respond to that. you mentioned quickly, you said that you just don't strike at night. but they did pick this particular time for a reason. >> we generally start night because that's when people are at their lowest. that's when people are in bed. and that's when you least expect it. so you want that element of surprise. but once you start you don't stop. >> at least collateral damage because all the civilians are down and we have those targeted aspects. >> general hertling, thanks so much for your expertise. and for your service. we appreciate having you on set with us. >> you guys helped us out a lot here. we really appreciate it. and you informed the viewers as

well p not only here in the united states but around the world. our coverage of the air strikes in syria now continues now with cnn's becky anderson in abu dhabi and errol barnett at the cnn center in atlanta. i'm don lemon. >> i'm alisyn camerota. thanks for joining us. good night. don and allison, thank you both very much. a big welcome to our viewers in the united states and around the world. i'm errol barnett. >> and i'm becky anderson. thank you for joining us for ou news of the u.s. air strikes in syria. the u.s. and at least five other arab nations are participating in air strikes over isis targets in the syrian city of