away. refugees who fled those very forces. they're watching under fire. brianna keilar is stepping in for wolf blitzer and she begins right now. hello, i'm brianna keilar reporting from washington. wolf blitzer has the day off. and you are looking right now at some live pictures from the pentag pentagon. we are waiting right now for defense secretary chuck hagel and joint chiefs chairman general martin dempsey to speak to reporters. this will be the first time that we have heard from them since the u.s. launched air strikes in syria and as soon as they come to the microphones, we will take you there live. first, let's get some amazing video from an area along the syria/turkey border. this is really, you know, unbelievable pictures we have been seeing today. the battle here between syrian kurdish forces and isis fighters. here is part of what our crew saw. >> isis has been making

progress. a few more miles each day. now, just take a look up at that ridge line right now. [ cheers and applause ] what you are seeing is tracer fire moving in to that ridge line that is currently occupied by isis forces. and around me, the kurdish crowd is cheering. take a listen. >> that was our phil black narrating the fire fight as it happened. just a short time ago. and he joins me live now. phil, these pictures that we are watching right now, they were taken at dusk really there along the syria/turkey border. night as fallen. has the fighting stopped? >> reporter: it appears to have largely stopped, brianna. yes. we're still hearing the occasional burst of small arms fire. the odd blasts and tracer fire through the night sky. but for the most part, yes, it does appear to have stopped. one of the last things that we saw, as dusk was falling, it

appeared to be that group of isis fighters dropping away from that ridge line that they were trying to hold there. so it would appear for the moment that, yes, the fighting, as intense as it was earlier in the day, has ebbed away, and it was pretty intense earlier. what we saw was a continual exchange of small arms fire and heavy or indirect fire, mortar rounds, we believe, between those isis fighters at the top of the ridgeline and kurdish syrian fighters on an opposing ridge line. isis has been trying to move through this territory for a wek week or so, the local kurdish fighters have been slowing them down but not able to stop them. we have seen this week some 200,000, it is estimated, syrian refugees flee their homes as isis advances crossing into turkey. and that has been continuing. there was an initial influx of some 140,000 or so, then

thousands more every day, and it is continuing, because that isis advance is continuing. and we've been talking to people, those refugees as they cross the boarder and they've been telling terrible, tragic stories about their loss and about what they have witnessed, about what they have seen isis do to the villages, the homes and their families. people have talked about loved ones being killed in crossfire, being executed and wiped out by artillery fire as well. what we are witnessing in this region, and what we saw with our own eyes in a very extraordinary way this afternoon was isis advancing through this northern territory which up until now it's not controlled but trying hard to do so. >> how concerned, phil, is turkey that isis fighters have so close along the border, and is the turkish military doing anything to get involved here? >> reporter: the turkish military is not getting directly involved in this fight yet, no. no doubt turkey is concerned. turkey has been concerned about

isis for some time as it has been concerned about the ongoing conflict tearing the country apart and it's because of the conflict turkey has some 1.5 million syrian refugees on its territory. it is an incredible burden, and that is turkey's number one concern in dealing with the ongoing syrian crisis. it is concerned about isis. if has not yet joined and may not join, we don't know, this international coalition that is taking the fight directly to isis, itself, but the turkish government tells us that it is concerned about isis, but its primary concern is the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe and believes it has been left to shoulder that burden largely to itself, and that western, very wealthy western countries are not doing enough to assist. that is the view of the turkish government, brianna. >> phil black, very important point of view to share with us. tl. thank you so much for your report. i want to bring in now cnn military analyst lieutenant

colonel rick francona. this is pretty amazing video, this fire fight that we're seeing here. what's your initial reaction to what we're seeing and if we're learning anything new? >> well, it follows what we've been watching for the past couple of weeks. we know that the isis has wanted to take that whole turkish border area and they've been pushing the kurds closer to the turkish border. and as what we're seeing, this humanitarian crisis, it's erupting in turkey, and it appears that isis is allowing the kurds to take refuge in turkey. they're not trying to stop them. i was talking to phil earlier about this, and it seems that they're more interested in seizing the terrain and holding that terrain than they are with the kurds that are actually living there, so if the kurds want to leave, they're going to let them. as far as the fighting goes, this is really dramatic footage, but you can see where the -- isis actually is better gunned and they have more people, so eventually the isis is going to push them back. you know, and as they said, 100

meters a day, a mile a day, and so we're watching the kurds being pushed into this, right up against the border. so, this would be a great opportunity for air power to get involved, but we've got no one on the ground to do the forward air control which is a key part of this. >> so, that's what i was going to ask you, so this is an area where, for instance, u.s. or other arab nations who are ago l allied at this point, it's rife for them to intervene with air power but they're sort of flying blind in a way. >> well, they won't because the chance of hitting friendly forces or causing civilian casualties would far outweigh the benefit. everybody wants to bring air power in, but remember how far away the bases are from which we're operating. it would take a long time to get there, and without anybody on the ground to control this, it just wouldn't happen. >> and you can see how closely certainly the crowd there of largely we believe syrian kurds

watching and cheering as isis fighters took on some fire there. right now, lieutenant colonel, we're awaiting this pentagon briefing. we'll be hearing from defense secretary. we'll be hearing from the joint chiefs chairman. this is the first time that we will be hearing from them since these air strikes began. what are you expecting they'll say? >> well, i'm hoping to hear an update on the status of the air campaign. what is their assessment of how it's going? are we achieving the object is? are we being effective? how are the allies doing? and what can we expect in the future? i know that we just heard that the dutch and the belgians are going to be participating. there was this vote in the british parliament. we can expect to see more assets being brought into the area. how are they going to integrate those into the force? >> big, big news out of britain with the vote to join the fight. lieutenant colonel rick francona, stay with us. we're going to come back to you later in the hour. it's official, as you heard the

lieutenant colonel say, less than an hour ago the united kingdom voted to take military action. listen. >> order. >> the ayes to the right. 524. the nos to the left, 43. >> now, this means that britain will join the air campaign against isis militants in iraq. prime minister david cameron convening this special session of parliament earlier today. and he told lawmakers why he thinks there should be military action. >> let me make some progress on why i believe military action is necessary before taking further interventions. frankly, without it, i don't believe there is a realistic o prospect of degrading and degrading isil and should be frank there is already a military conflict taking place. isil have taken territory. they're butchering people in iraq. >> the opposition also backed air strikes in iraq. here's part of what labor party

leader ed milliband had to say. >> i rise to support the government motion concerning military action against isil in iraq. and it is right that the prime minister has brought this issue to the house and that he has committed that he will bring future decisions to the house, too. let us to be clear, mr. speaker, at the outset, what is the proposition today? it's about air strikes against isil in iraq. it is not about ground troops from the united kingdom. nor about uk military action elsewhere. it is a mission specifically aimed at isil. >> but the british parliament is not unanimous. many british lawmakers are worried about this waresq esqu escalating. >> if there's a consensus in here that we're going to soon be bombing syria, the words don't mention boots on the ground, but there's a consensus here that there will be boots on the ground. the only question, the only question being, whose boots are

they? >> let's bring in cnn international anchor and correspondent hala gorani joining us from london. you're listening there, hala, you can hear in the british parliament there's a concern because there's a vote here to authorize force in iraq, not syria, and there's concern that there will be essentially mission creep, right? >> reporter: right. there is some concern, however, if you look at the vote breakdown, we're looking at an overwhelming yes in favor of this military intervention in iraq with the yeses at 524, the nos at 43. but you're right, there was some dissent, and some of the members of parliament in the house of commons here behind me voicing some concern that essentially this is open-ended and this could be opening the door to involvement in syria. and a very long-term military involvement for the uk in that part of the world. you have to put this -- this is the 11th war for the united kingdom since 1991, of course, the two main ones, iraq and afghanistan, that have met a lot

of opposition in this country. there were no an tighppetite mo ago for any kind of military intervention. brianna, with isis' advance in iraq and terrible videos of beheading of american journalists and one british aid worker, you're feeling public opinion shift this country in support of military intervention to do something, anything against isis. even though long term, and it has been said by every military expert i've spoken to, you will need a ground component. the uk and united states have both said no boots on the ground. but at some point, this military operation is going to have to morph into something different and that is what some opponents of this effort right now are voicing concern about. but right now, a decisive political victory for the prime minister. here he made sure that this motion was very precise, that it was only iraq, not syria, no boots on the ground, and it was passed overwhelmingly. >> and what a difference a year

makes, right, hala? it was about this time last year where prime minister cameron brought the british parliament back from vacation to have another vote taking strikes in syria, really to debate that and it did not go -- it went completely the opposite way. >> reporter: right. it was, in fact, a terrible political embarrassment for him because he recalled parliament. this was after the syrian regime -- we're not talking about isis here -- but the syrian government was accused of having essentially used chemical weapons against its own people. there was talk earn in the united states of intervening militarily. parliament asked here for military intervention. that went exactly in the opposite direction. they said no. that was very embarrassing for him. this time around, he pretty much made sure it had all the support they could get. the three main parties in parliament all aligned behind

this movement. we'll see because the prime minister, himself, is acknowledging this will take ke years. we'll see how much appetite is left after this mission sort of kind of carries over into the coming weeks and months and how effective it is in combatting isis. brianna? >> certainly a consensus in the uk, as well in the u.s., that isis is a much bigger threat to western interests than bashar al assad is. hala gorani for us in london. thank you so much. up next, we'll be going to the pentagon where we're expecting to hear details on the u.s. mission in iraq and syria. defense secretary chuck hagel and joint chiefs chairman martin dempsey will be taking questions, and we'll take you there live. ♪ [music] defiance is in our bones.

defiance never grows old. citracal maximum. easily absorbed calcium plus d. beauty is bone deep. ♪ honey, we need to talk. we do? i took the trash out. i know. and thank you so much for that. i think we should get a medicare supplement insurance plan. right now? [ male announcer ] whether you're new to medicare or not, you may know it only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. it's up to you to pay the difference. so think about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, they help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. i did a little research. with a medicare supplement plan, you'll be able to stay with your doctor. oh, you know, i love that guy. mm-hmm. [ male announcer ] these types of plans let you visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. and there are no networks.

is this a one-size-fits-all kind of thing? no. there are lots of plan options. it all depends on what we need and how much we want to spend. [ male announcer ] call now to request your free decision guide. it could help you find an aarp medicare supplement plan that's right for you. what happens when we travel? the plans go with us. anywhere in the country. i like that. you know what else? unitedhealthcare insurance company has years and years of experience. what do you say? ♪ i'm in. [ male announcer ] join the millions already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp. remember, all medicare supplement plans help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay and could really save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. you'll be able to choose your own doctor or hospital as long as they accept medicare patients. and with these plans, there could be low or no copays. you do your push-ups today? prepare to be amazed. [ male announcer ] don't wait.

call today to request your free decision guide and find the aarp medicare supplement plan to go the distance with you. go long.

we're keeping an eye on the pentagon as we speak. you can see we're waiting here for any moment we're expecting to hear from defense secretary chuck hagel as well as joint chiefs chairman general martin dempsey and this will be the first time we heard from them since these air strikes were launched in syria earlier this week. so a big briefing and we'll bring that to you live as soon as it begins. after getting blind sided by a warning from iraq's new prime minister, u.s. officials are trying to reassure americans that subway systems are safe. al abadi told reporters yesterday that his country had discovered an isis plot to attack transit systems in the u.s. and paris, but u.s. intelligence officials say no such threat exists. today, iraq's president says he cannot confirm the report.

>> i don't have any information about this. i have not heard or seen exactly what he said. that could be. that's an expectation of this to happen by sleeper cells and they retaliate. they could to resort to such thing, but as detailed accurate information, i have not seen any information like this. >> so that's talking about isis, but the fbi still has concerns about korahsan, an al qaeda off shoot in syria, and director james comey is not confident, that's a quote, that air strikes in syria disrupted it.

a lot of issues to talk about here. let's bring in cnn law enforcement analyst tom fuentes, and joining us as well, peter brooks, also a senior fellow at heritage foundation. tom, i want to getspectives on . you have the prime minister of iraq saying one thing, that there is this threat from isis which generally we haven't even conceived of to be threatening the u.s. homeland certainly imminently. are these just signals getting crossed? what's going on here? >> the only cross here is the iraqi prime minister not knowing what he's talking about because nobody in iraq has heard of this, no one at the u.s. embassy which is staffed fully with fbi, cia, the ambassador, the deputy chiefs of mission, the defense atta attashes. nothing, our allies have heard a

thing, including the fbi, cia and entire infrastructure of the u.s. he more or less retracted it later. it really was a thing he shouldn't have said, and having said it, he tried to undo it, but no one's been able to put the genie back in the bottle. >> what is it? some people have said this may have been raw intel he was getting from isis fighters captured in iraq, but it might have just been essentially untrue. >> we certainly hope it wasn't politically motivated. they'd like us to see isis as a greater danger than they perhaps are. >> meaning he may try to scare americans -- >> put more resources into what's going on in his fight against isis in iraq. that's a possibility. i don't want to say that's what he was doing, but we certainly can't rule that out. we don't know what was in his heart and mind when he said that. >> what i circus s sosis soldie been -- >> sort of the reverse. we've seen iraqi soldiers overrun by isis fighters. 300 captured.

>> the quality of iraqi intelligence. that's another thing we have to be concerned about. >> or the iraqi prime minister saying this, right? this is the guy who is supposed to be in charge of a political solutions in iraq. what does that tell you about what kind of partner he is? do you take anything away from that? >> it could undermine our confidence in him. hopefully it won't and hopefully he'll have learned something from this. of course, we did have to run -- we have to take anything like this seriously. >> let's talk about the air strikes in syria. so the u.s. took on isis in syria with these air strikes with arab allies. separately the u.s. going alone took on korashan, an al qaeda off shoot with air strikes. we're hearing, again, mixed signals here. james comey, the fbi director is saying one thing, that he's not confident that we've really sort of hurt them, or the u.s. has hurt korashan and others saying

they have more confidence. what do we make of this? >> there you have the military saying in their battle-damage assessment that they hit what they were aiming at. >> we. >> you have the director of the fbi, james comey saying, we don't know, we know the bombs landed on the building in the facilities they aimed for. was the intelligence correct that they were frthere at the te of the bombing or left earlier or maybe were never there? that's the difference. referring to them as an al qaeda off shoot doesn't do them justice. this is the al qaeda all-star team. this is like somebody that has a new york yankee uniform like derek jeter go to the all-star game and the uniform says american league. that doesn't mean he's an off shoot of baseball. he's an all-star. they've sent their best players from pakistan, afghanistan, and yemen to syria. this is a serious group. >> brianna, sometimes you don't know what you don't know. >> there are no eyes on the ground. >> it's like a jigsaw puzzle l.

don't have all the pieces. you don't know exactly what you're puttinging to. they're probably being cautious here. it's a threat. we know al qaeda instead of focus on syria, what's going on in syria, they're focusing on the united states but using syria. that brings us to the problem of having these ungoverned lawless spaces where terrorists can set up camp and plan and operate against the united states and western europe. >> is that how you would describe them as al qaeda all-stars? >> these are the folks, the head of the group was with osama bin laden around the time of 9/11, a young man, up and comer. he's still around. is al qaeda on the run? maybe on the run to syria and other places where they can plan, train, and operate. >> thank you so much, tom fuentes, peter brooks. coming up, we've been waiting, it should start any moment now, to hear from defense secretary chuck hagel and joint chiefs chairman general martin dempsey. as soon as this starts we will

bring it to you live. also ahead, there are pressing issues at the united nations. one of the key ones this week is iran's nuclear program. diplomats are pressing ahead with -- actually, you know what, we're going to cut out of this and go straight to the pentagon for this press conference we've been waiting for with secretary hagel and chairman of the joint chiefs. here you go. >> as you all know, this has been an important week in our campaign against isil. so let me make a few comments about that campaign and what's going on the last week then general dempsey will make some comments. and then we'll take your questions. as i said, this week has been an important week for u.s. and our coalition forces as we began air strikes in syria. along with france, we've conducted over 200 air strikes in iraq against isil and in support of iraqi forces.

with or air partners we conducted 43 air strikes in sere wra. combined with our ongoing efforts in iraq, these strikes will continue to deny isil freedom of movement, and challenge its ability to plan, direct, and sustain its operations. we also took action in syria against a network of al qaeda veterans known as the khorasan group. we're still assessing the operational impact of these strikes. this was a critical operation. members of this group were actively plotting attacks against the united states and our friends and allies. in syria, there has been no coordination, nor will there be with the assad regime. nothing has changed about our position that has shifted our approach to assad and his

regime. because this regime, president assad has lost all legitimacy to govern. as we continue our operations from the air, i also want to emphasize that no one is under any illusions, under any illusi illusion, that air strikes alone will destroy isil. they are one element of our broader comprehensive campaign against isil. a campaign that has diplomatic, economic intelligence and other military components working with coalition partners in a new government in iraq. this week, we moved forward on ev each of these fronts. in new york, the president chaired a u.n. security council meeting focused on stopping the flow of fighters into and out of the region. with the treasury department in the lead, the united states and our coalition partners are intensifying efforts and we

continue to support the new iraqi government and its program of reconciliation, because that is the only long-term solution to the sectarian tensions that enabled isil's rise in iraq. on wednesday, president obama met with prime minister abadi. the president affirmed america's support for him. his new government, and the iraqi people. yesterday, secretary kerry met with members of the gulf cooperation council, and the president and vice president spoke with turkish president to strengthen our coalition against isil. senior military officials continue to coordinate with coalition partners. other dimensions of our military strategy are also seeing progress. now that we have the support of congress, we are moving forward with our plan to train and equip the moderate syrian opposition. we have begun detailed military planning for this mission.

and assessment teams have arrived in saudi arabia. in iraq, isil strongholds continue to pose a major challenge, but our support for iraqi and kurdish forces is enabling many iraqi units to two on the offensive. coalition forces will continue to maintain pressure on isil fighters throughout iraq. as the president emphasized on wednesday in his speech at the united nations, this broad diplomatic, economic, and military campaign is being underwritten by a broad multinational coalition of more than 40 nations. including five regional partners. and this coalition continues to expand. over the last two days, the governments of belgium, denmark, and the netherlands have announced their intention to participate in coalition air strikes in iraq. a few minutes ago, before coming down here, i spoke with britain's defense minister,

michael fallon. he called me as he left the chambers of the parliament to inform me that the british parliament just voted 524-43 to join the air campaign in iraq with the united states and our coalition partners. a broad coalition had been and will continue to be a cornerstone of our strategy against isil. and we appreciate all the contributions and commitments of our friends and allies as we continue to work closely with them and coordinate their participation and efforts. sustaining our broad diplomatic economic and military campaign will require a long-term commitment. from the united states and all of our partners and allies. this will not be an easy or brief effort. we are at the beginning, not the end. we are at the beginning, not the end of our effort to degrade and destroy isil. i know that americans have

confidence in the skill and professionalism of our men and women in uniform. and our exceptional l mimilitar leadership. when i had the opportunity to visit sentcom last week with president obama in tampa, we made a point of expressing our deep appreciation to general austin and his sentcom team for their hard work, their planning, and this hard work and planning, a commitment to this country, is keeping america secure. i'm proud of them. the president's proud of them. we're all proud of them. we're proud of these men and women who do so much for our country and the men and women downrange who are carrying out this mission every day with courage, dedication, and resolve. thank you? >> marty? >> thanks, mr. secretary. i'd like to also reiterate that the campaign against isil will be a persistent and sustained campaign and will take time. as i said last week, this is not an iraq -- this is an iraq-first strategy, but it's not an iraq

only one. our coalition strikes this week demonstrate to isil that they have no safe haven in syria. our targeted action are disrupting isil's command and control, and their infrastructure in syria, while in iraq we're empowering our iraqi parter er ier partners te offense. build and sustain to set the stage for a broader international campaign against isil. our military action are part of a comprehensive strategy that includes disrupting their financing, recruitment and moving of foreign fighters and false narratives in particular stripping away their cloak of religious legitimacy behind which they hide. while the situation in the mid-east devolves and continues to demand our attention, we're also balancing pressing challenges in other regions. the ebola outbreak in west africa is the largest the world

has ever seen. this is a complex emergency beyond a public health crisis that has significant humanitarian, economic, political and security dimensions. as part of the interagency and international response, we're leveraging our military's unique capabilitieses to establish command and control, logistics hubs, training for health care personnel and engineering support. as most of you know, i just returned on tuesday from a trip to france, lithuania, and croatia where i had candid and very productive discussions with my nato counterparts. russ russia's aggression in eastern europe and vulnerabilities to nato's southern flanks stemming from isil and other regional threats and our enduring commitments in afghanistan will continue to demand the attention of our european allies. while i was in europe, i had a chance to visit the american military cemetery in normandy with my french colleague. that sacred ground near the sands of omaha beach is a

testament to the extraordinary men and women in uniform who safeguard our freedoms. today, they're conducting hundreds of exercises, activities and engagements across the globe. actions that deterred conflict and assure our allies. they're always foremost on my mind as are their families, and with that, we'll be happy to take your questions? >> laura? >> you mentioned president erdowan and turkey a few moments ago. as i'm sure you know, turkey is again raising the prospect of a buffer zone in syria and iraq with its border, also today raised the prospect of a no-fly zone. chairman dempsey has spoken about that in the fast. wondering if the united states will now consider supporting act ily to protect o no-fly zone or buffer zone, to enforce one, and also can you please give me explicit examples of how the united states is protecting

against civilian casualties in syria? >> thank you. on the first question, buffer zone issue, as i mentioned and you know, the president and the vice president spoke to the prime minister this week. we continue to talk to turkish leadership about their different ways to contribute to the coalition. the issue of a buffer zone is not a new issue. as you all know. we discuss all the possibilities and continue to talk about what the turks believe they require. they know clearly that isil and what's happening in sere wyria iraq is a clear and present threat, danger to them. they are now hosting about 1.3 million refugees, plus all of

the other dimensions of the isil threat to their country and their people. as for collateral, our military, every mission that it plans always factors in first collateral damage questions and assessments. there is no strike -- no military action undertaken in our military without that clear assessme assessment, and then a judgment has to be used as to whether we would go forward with that mission. it is first and foremost the priority of our commanders who have responsibility for strikes to make sure, do everything they can to make sure there is no collateral damage specifically civilian casualties. i know, general, you mentioned

that. >> thanks, mr. secretary. what i'd add is one of the things you're seeing in this air campaign is the fruition of two decades of interoperability and procurement activities, training activities, education activities, with our allies in the region who are performing just as well as we are on the issue of precision and reducing the possibility of collateral damage. of course, you know, you can't reduce it to zero and i suspect that over time isil will probably publish a few propaganda videos alleging civilian casualties. but we've got a pretty good suite of isr that should enable us to actually determine not only how to strike but the results of it after the fact. what we call battle damage assessment. but our allies are doing very well because of 20 years of effort. >> can i ask you to just clarify

on the issue of enforcing a no-fly zone or buffer zone with turkey? >> yeah, look, a buffer zone might at some point become a possibility, but that's not part of our campaign plan presently. >> secretary hagel, general dempsey, thank you very much. i wonder if i can ask you first, secretary hagel, you're aware of the threat faced by kurds, the northwestern border, in fact there was a fire fight playing out between isis fighters and syrian kurds on cnn a short time ago. they appear to be facing the same genocidal threat we saw the yazidi people and other people in iraq. why hasn't the u.s. come to the aid of the syrian kurds from the air? and is that a step that you're considering taking and i wonder if i could have a quick follow up with the general? >> well, first of all, as general dempsey said, we have a rather sophisticated and complete isr picture of all of that area including the area

that you talk about. so we are aware of what's going on. we are discussing how and what we can do with our coalition partners to help them deal with it. so it's not a matter of us not being aware of it nor not actively looking at the options we have to deal with. >> does that mean someone like turkey would be more likely to act than the u.s.? >> jim, as i said in my answer to laura, we're talking to turkey about this and all of the different aspects of the isil threat. >> wonder if i could ask you, it's been a little more than a week since you testified before congress and mentioned during that testimony that if you believed it was the right step, you would recommend deploying u.s. ground forces in certain roles. if you believe that that was the right thing to recommend to the president, since then, we heard from many administration

officials attempting to walk that back, but if it sounded to me and to others like you were a commander saying honestly and sincerely that you would do what you felt was necessary, you would recommend what you felt was necessary, if you thought that was necessary and to accomplish the mission? i wonder if you stand by that? that if you believe it's necessary, you will go to the president and say, mr. obama, i need ground troops in certain roles to succeed here? >> if you're asking me, would i provide my best military advice at all times? the answer is absolutely. if you're suggesting that i might at some point recommend that we need a large ground force to counter isil, the answer to that is also absolutely. the americans. in fact, ideally for the kind of issues we're confronting there, the ideal force, in fact, the only truly effective force that we'll actually be able to reject isil from within its own population, is a force comprised of iraqis and kurds and moderate

syrian opposition. at some point, if we have to advise them more closely than currently we are, of course i'd recommend it. but we haven't reached that point. >> i'm not talking about a large presence, i'm talking about, for instance, helping in targeting. targeting air strikes or forward deployed advisers. are those specific missions that you might ask the president for u.s. -- >> i just stand by the statement. i will make a recommendation that -- the president gave me a mission. destroy isil. and i will recommend to him what it takes to destroy isil. >> i might just add, jim, every meeting i've been in with the president of the united states and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff over the last year and a half, the president has made it very clear, as i have made it very clear as secretary of defense, he expe expects, the president of the united states, the absolute most direct and honest military advice that general dempsey and other military uniform leaders

can gi hve him. he wants it and he must rely on it, and he says he relies on it. tony. >> a couple -- a budget question then a second question for general dempsey. what are the resource implications of this long, persistent, sustained campaign? can you realistically conduct it within the confines of your current budgeting plans? specifically a $58 billion request for fiscal year '15. can you accommodate the sustained campaign within those levels of spending? >> well, as you know, we're generally spending roughly since this effort started $7 million to $10 million a day. that's being funded out of overseas contingency operations. and we're going to require additional funding from congress as we go forward.

as you know, the continuing resolution is due in december 11th. we're working now with the appropriate committees on how we go forward with authorizations and funding. >> could i add to that? >> please. >> obviously i worked very closely with the chiefs. when we submitted the budget last year and it went through the white house for approval and it was approved and sent over to ko congress, as you know, the joint chiefs all said we could accomplish the nation's security needs. one of them was the level of commitments would either level off or come down, secondly we would get some flexibility in the budget to change pay compensation, health care, retire weapons systems and infrastructure. commitments have gone up. the things we were looking for in terms of flexibility have only very minimally been delivered. so if you're asking me do i assess right now as we go into the fall review for '16 that we're going to have budget problems? yes. >> you're going to be dropping

from 26,000 troops in afghanistan today to 9,800 next year, spending $1.6 billion a month in afghanistan now. that's going to come down. can't you move the savings from that into the isil campaign? >> you're talking about oco. oco is gas money. the baseline budget is what builds and sustained, trains and equips and organizes a force. we have to separate those when we talk about budget. >> and we will be. marcus? >> to follow up on tony's question, have they done a long-term analysis on what they expect? >> we're doing that right now. we have to. we would have to project out, as we are, what the chairman's point was about baseline budgets. that's the critical part of this. and so, yes, we're doing that now. >> yeah, and if i can add to that, because i just got asked minutes ago, how long is it going to take to recapture mosul l? and i said, hmm, great question,

if you don't mind, i'll answer it with a question. how long is it going to take the new government of iraq to convince the sunni, shia, and kurds that the future should rest with them, not with separations along sectarian lines? this is a campaign that strings activities together and one of the activities that has to come together is a government of iraq that separates because of its policies. that can draw the people back to them so that isil can no longer swim freely within the ranks. >> john? >> chairman dempsey, do you believe that it will, in fact, take some ground troops inside syria to destroy isis? and if they're not americans, do you have enough faith in training 5,000 free syrian army troops, the nonaggressive militants, to achieve that goal? to destroy isis?

>> first, i never heard the phrase nonaggressive militants, but i suppose it sounds to me like an oxymoron, jim. let me see if i can answer the question. airpower alone, first of all, there's no military solution to isil. have i military-only solution, okay? secondly, there's no airpower alone solution to isil. either in iraq or in syria. and so the answer is, yes, there has to be a ground component to the campaign against isil in syria, and we believe that the path to develop that is the syrian moderate opposition. 5,000 has never been the end state. there's -- we've had estimates anywhere from 12,000 to is15,00 we believe they would need to recapture lost territory in eastern syria. and i am confident that we can establish their training if we do it right. we have to do it right. not fast. they have to have military leaders that bind them together. they have to be -- have a political structure into which

they can hook and, therefore, be responsive to, and that's going to take some time. >> mr. secretary, you said earlier this week that the u.s. would defend militarily the free syrian army. what does that mean? i mean, are you talking about possibly engaging syrian forces militarily? >> i think the question was asked, those that we would begin training, if they were attacked, would we help them? and i said, yes. >> mr. secretary -- >> christine? >> thank you. mr. secretary, why was the decision made to send the headquarters element of the first infantry division to iraq? what will they be doing there? will they leave the joint operation centers? and general, i want to follow up with a question for you. >> well, first of all -- >> i can help you with that one, too. >> in fact, the general's son is with the first division. but you recall the president when he announced to the nation

what his strategy was and what he was instructing the defense department to do. he mentioned that there'd be an increase of 475 personnel. and so the command and control function of that will come out of the first division. as other personnel will be assigned as well from other components. but that's why they're going. >> yeah, and they're a coherent, standing, war-fighting organization that understands how to integrate these multiple activities and manage the activities of the coalition. the group that went in there initially was focused on the security forces, monitoring the activities of the assessment team. this is an organization that actually has the bandwidth and

skill set to manage the campaign. >> dave, did you have -- >> i'm sorry, i wanted to follow up with a question. can you give us an update about the training of iraqi forces and what are the risks to u.s. troops that will be doing the training and advising there? >> well, the update is that the -- as i mentioned, i think in a previous engagement, of the 26 or so brigades that we assessed to be prepared to accept training and advice and re-equipping were beginning to do two things. one is we're working with -- sentcom is working with the iraqi military leaders to ensure that what occurs on the ground is their campaign, not our campaign. we want it to be their campaign enabled by us, not our campaign where we drag them along for legitimacy. and i can assure you that some of the activities, all of the activities you've seen in and around baghdad up until now have been iraq military leaders

establishing priorities and objectives enabled by us. so we're making progress. we've got to have a longer, larger campaign that actually recaptures lost territory. what risks? by the way, you know, the men in women in uniform understand risk. they understand how to manage it. we've been doing training and equip for the last 12 years. nonstop. we can't ever drive risk to zero, but i assure these young men and women we mitigate it and reduce it to the greatest extent possible. >> do you believe that so far you have avoided any civilian casualties in your air campaign? and do you have any reason to believe that the reports that senior leaders of isis and khorasan have been killed in some of these air strikes? >> we have received no reports

of civ reporting on the ground in an air campaign. we are alert for it. we are trying to confirm or deny battle damage assessments. as for whether some of the key leaders of khorasan or isil have been killed, too soon to tell. we monitor various kinds of intelligence. we scan social media, which is normally the first place to find out, but too soon to tell. >> who is the head of the opposition, the moderate rebels that you are planning to train? and chairman democracy, do you need spotters on the ground to be more precise in air strikes in syria? is that what's stopping you from helping the kurds along the turkish border now? >> first of all, we're in the

process of setting up the vetting system for those that we will begin training moderate opposition syrian fighters. >> who is the head of that? >> we don't have a head of it. we are vetting and will continue to vet will you regional departments, state department, intelligence departments as they will build their coalitions with our help. we won't instruct them as to who their leaders are. they'll make their own decisions on who their leaders are. >> jennifer, the question about whether we need spotters, as you say, forward air controllers on the ground to help in syria and whether that's a limiting factor in what's going on on the ground -- with the syrian kurds, the answer is no. as i mentioned in testimony, the issue manifests itself when the forces join. and become intermingled.

that's when it becomes complicated and difficult to manage from a full motion video feed from a predator. these forces happen to be separate. that's not a limiting factor. i would also remind us, actually, that you can't be every place and see everything. i know that somebody has an iphone out there taking a picture of it, but that doesn't mean we're nearby because the centcom commander given the tasks he's given prioritizes resources and he may not be looking right now at the syrian border. >> thanks, everybody. appreciate it. all right. that is a key briefing there we just got from defense secretary chuck hagel and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, martin democracy. to discuss it i want to bring in cnn military analyst lieutenant colonel rick francona. first to you, lieutenant colonel there were a few key moments in

the briefing. one of which was jim showhen as ground forces may need to become involved against isis. he said he would provide his best military advice, but it doesn't need to be american. so looking allies. >> i'm sorry? >> he appears to be walking back what he said, saying there needs to be a large ground force, but instead of it being american, it will need to be allies, but at this point they're reticent. >> this is being hit home more and more every day as we see how bad the iraqi army is.

if he's relying on the iraqi army to stand up, that will take more time. the peshmerga will require more weapons and training. so i think we're looking at a much longer time horizon than they originally thought. at some point he may be looking for other people to come in there, maybe jordanians or saudis. but i think our assessment of the iraqi army, i hate to say this, was optimistic as bad as it was. >> what about moderate syrian rebels? it sounds listening to this briefing that the idea of even identifying, lieutenant colonel, identifying who may be able to take on isis in syria, that it's a nacent process. we heard democracy s dempsey sa it right, not do it fast. this sounds like a drawn out

situation. >> that was a very interesting answer to jim's question. it sounds like they really are looking at a long, long-term solution here. the training will take a long time. it has not started yet. in the meantime, isis is on the move. we saw today they're moving up to the turkish border, still taking territory from the kurds and moving to the west towards aleppo. isis is not slowing down. the air power so far has not blunted that advance as it has in iraq. are we going to put more air power into syria? are we willing to continue this campaign for months and months while we get ground troops in there or train up some syrian moderates? i think the syria piece is the real problem. the iraqi piece can be solved, it will take time, but the syria piece is really -- they have not thought this out yet.

>> seems very much in the beginning of things right now. certainly to that point, i think we heard chuck hagel say as much. let's bring in jim. he asked the key question of this briefing. break that down for us, jim. the response you got. >> i did not hear a walk-back frankly from general dempsey when i asked that question. he said the preference is for a local large ground force, when i pressed him whether he stands by his comments whether he needs to recommend a small contingent of u.s. troops to be forward deployed with units, more deployed than they are now, right you to they're back in joint operations center in irbil or baghdad, he said he would go to the president. secretary of defense hagel followed that up by saying as he

did last week during testimony, that the president said to them repeatedly, listen, come to me when you have those recommendations, i'll listen to them. i didn't hear them walking that back or closing that door. i heard them holding to a line that they said last week in senate testimony, if we determine we need that step, we will recommend that step. they did say that the president told them as commanders, if you believe that is the right step, come to me, i will listen. i saw a commander there standing by his sincere commitment to ask for what he believes is necessary to complete the mission, including a small contingent of u.s. ground troops. >> he said if necessary, tom, he will advise. before that, he highlighted the iraqis, kurds, moderate syrian opposition. >> the other question i have is the administration keeps saying and the secretary said today that the government of iraq is

making great progress. the new government. what new government? they have been office for about two hours, they do not have a minister of defense or minister of interior. so nobody running military, law enforcement, border control. without that, we don't even know who will be in charge of that. until they get back in there and appoint some sunnis back to key positions that we trained. after all, for the last 12 years we trained more military officials in iraq than we have at west point. that has to happen. that's not on the road to happening yet. >> that's a key point, you bring up. i wonder what you think about this, jim. we did hear during this briefing that, you know, obviously highlighting that the u.s. is trying to help iraq and certainly support iraq in its reconciliation process, bringing in sunnis so they don't feel disenfranchised by the iraqi government, that created a void

that allowed isis to find a toehold in this. >> these are all steps that the administration wants but that we haven't seen yet. yes, you have a new iraqi president and prime minister, but you don't have the key positions filled which are the ones who have always been the real deal breakers when trying to find a solution that all sides can be happy with. in addition to the fact those are the two key positions you need to wage a war against isis in the country. that political process is coming slowly. you heard from secretary hagel and general dempsey saying that we know -- he said it in explicit terms, secretary hagel very early in his comments. we are under no illusions that air strikes alone will destroy isis. he went to list other steps, including political agreement. >> jim sciutto, thank you very

much. >> thank you. we are at the beginning not the end of our efforts to degrade isil, that was from chuck hagel. i'll be back at 5:00 eastern with the situation room. "newsroom with don lemon" starts right now. hello, everyone. this is cnn's special live coverage of the war against isis. you saw it on cnn, the top brass at the pentagon, defense secretary chuck hagel and updating us on kurdish fighters trying to halt a move by isis in an embattled syrian city. it's extraordinary footage. here's how it looked before the sunset. within the past two hours, that