"r.f. daily." the president at any minute is going to address the nation on the escalating crisis. we're expecting to hear the options he's considering to in that country. those options could include sending up to 100 special forces there. that seems to be what current reports are indicating. it's important to note not for combat roles is the information we have now. these new comments from the president are coming one day after he met with congressional leaders at the white house. as this is happening, isis sunni insurgents continue to advance virtually unchecked towards baghdad. joining me to look ahead at the president's remarks, nbc's chief white house correspondent chuck todd. also host of "the daily rundown here" and david gregory, host of nbc's "meet the press." chuck, what are you hearing there at the white house about the contients of this

announcement? >> we know the biggest news is sending secretary kerry to iraq. they've hit a road block with maliki. part of the president's, what he said last friday is that no military. he's not going to really okay a major military commitment to deal with the iraq chaos if there's not an equivalent if not stronger effort, on the political side by maliki. from what i've heard about various attempts, whether it's vice president biden who personally has a good relationship with maliki, every attempt to have maliki, hey, guy, you have to deal with this political situation. you have to reform your government. you have to figure out how to create a unity government. that he still spouts off conspiracy theorys. he's still a bit paranoid. and that they just don't think they'll get anywhere. so the last ditch effort appears to be sending kerry personally. and, obviously, that means it buys some time and space for the president as he continues to try to figure out what is the most effective military strategy here because there's not agreement on what that is either, ronan.

>> certainly disagreement on the hill as well. david, we've had people like john mccain coming out and being really vociferous on this point, accusing the president of napping on the job. do you think that this solution is going to satisfy those more hawkish elements in washington? >> no, i don't think so. i think the president has two chief concerns. one is, he's got the prospect of an islamic al qaeda state taking root in iraq when it's already taken root in part of syria. you have this al qaeda terrorist state that crosses these two countries and has the very real prospect of being in a position to be able to attack americans either in the region, in europe or even here in the united states. the president is on record. he doesn't want that to happen anywhere on the globe. really the basis for fighting in afghanistan. so that part of his foreign policy philosophy we know. the other piece is what chuck gets at. you'll never be able to beat back an isis and keep it beaten back if you don't have someone

in charge of iraq who can keep all of these pieces together. kurds, sunnis and shia. maliki is not the guy. and that's the relate. the president has been tough on him. president bush was close to him. put a lot of pressure on him. even those who work closely with maliki, i'm told, do not think he's up to the task. s so i think the big piece of the kerry mission is to try to get him to go and build on what the president has said. the united states is not going to ghit any way, shape or form, even if it's special ops going in there calling in air strikes, unless there's a real political solution as part of this that's more sustaining than we've seen so far. >> david, the reports seem to indicate maliki just isn't going to leave. if that ends up being the case, even after this trip, what's next? >> well, i mean, there will be more pressure on him. if baghdad is in danger of falling, even shia militias in the southern part of the country that may help it to stay more secure you have the prospect of a much smaller shia state within

a state that starts to break apart. or a sunni enclave that goes beyond iraq and extends into syria. and then, really, the most stable potential state is kurdistan where the kurds have wanted to be autonomous for a long time. this is what really gets into the political debate here in washington. and that is the fact that there has not been a serious strategy. the president has not felt the united states could make a difference in the sectarian conflict. and it is that foundation of a sectarian conflict is what gives space for terrorists, foreign fighters to come in and create what we're seeing. and that's something the united states, i think under any president, really can't abide by, which is any kind of terrorist state taking root because of all the potential danger. >> chuck, the last time we were up geens a wall in iraq we were backing local tribesmen, some of them sunni elements that may be part of this fight against the government we're allied with there. do you think we'll see a similar turn to proxy force use of the type the president contemplated

in the west point speech in this case? >> i think it's definitely where he wants to go. and if you look at the options that the president seems to be leaning toward, it does fit in within that framework he outlined, which is this is not about counterinsurgency. this is about counterterrorism. but i tell you, threading this needle -- i thought it was fascinating and want to bring back up what david petraeus said in london. to many, you know, the architect of the iraq surge and many republicans who have been critical of the president are big david petraeus fans. here he is warning, be careful. you don't want to look like you're militarily coming down on one side or the other in a religious conflict. that's the needle you have to thread. the united states doesn't want to look like it's taking sides in sunni versus shia but is trying to deal with this third element. we all know the history of the middle east. any time the united states has been portrayed as picking a side, it has caused problems down the road. and so this is yet, you know,

the other question the president has not had answered well for him from his advisers, after he does something, then what? >> and ronan, if i can just say -- one of the reasons why petray urks going back to the surge, that the lever amg he had, petraeus, during the surge in iraq had complete backing by the president to do that. but though united states owned and occupied iraq at that point. the united states no longer does that. it doesn't have the troops on the ground to really put the pressure on maliki. and that gets to chuck's point which is why this is so difficult. what is the ultimate end game? if you get to the turks who have a big stake in this. if iran has a big stake in this, how does the united states very effectively say we're about counterterrorism. we don't want isis to succeed without really coming to the defense of maliki. who is so disenfranchised sunni toss the point you have not just former baathists and saddam

adherents but the sunni who's live in that country say i'll join up with this nihilist terrorist group. >> david, as we part ways on this, how do you think the president sells this to the public, given that the actors he's deal with there are so imperfect in the ways you describe? >> it's got to be about counterterrorism. it's got to be about beating an islamic state. the american people know he does not want to get back into iraq but he's going to face, obviously, a bumpy ride just in washington. but that's still all about what are you doing to get the terrorists? >> nbc's david gregory and chuck todd. thanks to both of you so much. let's take a look at the wider implications any of intervention in the iraq crisis. how do you sell going back in? joining me to discuss, zach, a combat decorated marine infantry officer who served in iraq and jonathan alter, an msnbc political analyst. also author of "the center holds."

also david frum and a former speech writer for president bush. among the options the president is reportedly looking at is sending potentially up to 100 special forces. but not for combat. so what kinds of roles would you envision them playing given your tactical experience? >> there's a number of different roles they can play. primarily training and advising. so often we deploy special forces, i've deployed in that capacity to regions of the middle east and north africa. to train and equip and advise. so if they are planning operations, we can have senior level advisers who are advising senior general officers and battalion officers at different levels of the command about how to operate. different tactics. they can also advise them on new equipment being sent over there. so there's a number of roles they can play sort of being engaged in combat. >> jonathan, take a listen to something john kerry said to savannah guthrie earlier today.

>> nothing is off the table. all options are still available to the president. the president has not made the decision on those options. we are very intensely vetting each of the possibilities. >> jonathan, apparent lie the president is now meet with the national security team. should be on in about four minutes. we'll be going to him live. what kind of vetting process is under way at the white house to determine exactly what options he's referring to? >> well, i mean, they have a poli policy-making process. this is three-dimensional chess. we are a long way from where prior presidents were where we were in a bipolar world. and we basically had to figure out where the soviet union and maybe china were. and that could drive the rest of our policy making. this is an extraordinarily complex crisis that goes back 14 centuries. and to try to assume that the united states is going to be able to come in and deal with

these ancient rivalries between sunnis and shiites is unrealistic. as far as the advisers who are going in, i think that's a good thing. it's necessary but not sufficient. remember, we've already invested $25 billion in the iraqi army. a lot of money trying to build an army that disintegrated on contact when the isis forces moved toward them. >> in'd we heard very vividly, barbara boxer was on television saying how do we pay for after school programs if we go back in for another round of investment on this. it will be a tough sell. you see the briefing room there. what we're hearing behind the scenes is he may offer more limited involvement than initially reported. he may reaffirm that they're not going to put boots on the ground. may describe potential air strikes but say there's still only under potential consideration. what would you do, sir, having been in theater, knowing the

situation? a stark question, but what do you think the best option is. >> thank you for giving me that very easy question. it's so simple. the fact of the matter is the american public needs to get comfortable with the fact there are no easy answers to any of these situations that we're finding ourselves in. especially when it escalates into hot conflicts. in terms of the options the president has on his table, the number one thing that we have lost over the last ten years we've been at war, over ten years we've been at war is credibility with our allies. and i think that extends, you know, beyond iraq but in iraq. there's a lot that we should be doing with groups within that country that do like america. and are supportive of america. the kurds. there are -- that you mentioned earlier in the segment, tribes in al anbar province that worked very closely with the marines in 2006, 2007.

>> the al anbar awakening. you don't think there's been any reawakening to that with those individuals with training maybe not being so necessarily aligned with us? >> i don't. i think when we go to war, at least notionally, we go to war as a coalition. and the fact of the matter is the people we're often fighting are also a coalition. and what we often fail to do is ask who is fighting us and why are they fighting us? so there are very radical elements in northern and western iraq that have taken over that part of the country. but they are largely supported by elements of the population that are much more moderate. and i think that the way you win in a fight like this is by disaggregating those two. and that's what we did very, very successfully in al anbar earlier in the war is we fountain that there was reconcilable folks who often had legitimate grievances for fighting with us and people not reconcilable. and those are the ones you have

to fight. and i think what we're looking at now is very similarly a coalition -- >> we'll see if we have a return to some of those tactics. david frum has been waiting here. in the "atlantic" this week you wrote an article urging more caution. you said iraq isn't ours to save. how is this fight different than the one that played out in 2003, particularly in terms of the gop reaction you're seeing? >> this fight is different because this time, the government in baghdad is an iranian proxy government. that's who al maliki is a client of. he's not -- he doesn't do everything, they say, but he's highly dependent on iranian influence. and iran is the country that is most alarmed by this sudden collapse of the official iraqi forces. they've been very active in meddling internal iraqi politics. they've largely gotten their way in the past couple of years. and any american initiative at this point to save maliki would be to advance an iranian strategic interest. and what is really remarkable to me and very disturbing is to

watch this administration asking iran for permission to -- and even contemplating perhaps the iranians say, making other kinds of concessions to iran in order to gain permission to do something the iranians want the united states to do. iran should be asking the united states for permission and for help, not the other way around. >> we've got -- >> seems to be playing out. >> i was just going to say -- >> go ahead. >> it is true that john kerry did get out a little over his skis the other day and tried to pull it back yesterday in terms of contacts with iran. but there is no indication that the united states government is making unilateral concessions to iran to advance its policy in iraq. the fact that there is now an alignment of interests between the united states and iraq and iran in terms of fighting isis doesn't mean that the united states is going to, you know, give iran new leverage in their nuclear talks.

>> we've actually got british foreign secretary haig on the program coming up and we're going to look at that iran question. it is certainly a point of contico contention but there are so few in the region that people can reliably turn to. if not iran, with whom does the u.s. ally in this region? on intervention in iraq? who has the reach? >> well, two things. i just want to pick up on what jonathan said. i think he is -- a lot of these kinds of discussions happen necessarily behind closed door ways. and so you only get subtle clues as to what is going on. it's not a question of john kerry making some, oops, where did that come from remark. but what john kerry did was to reveal a discussion that if you -- i mean, jonathan is listening to this. we know this administration has been thinking that a larger detente with iran could solve a lot of their problems. they're willing to pay quite high prices. have already played in the relaxation of sanctions.

a high price for it. i just think don't wait until the gift is unwrapped to know what is -- what is in the box. you can shape the box and hear what's inside it. who should we be working with? our best bad alternative of the moment is to work with the kurdish forces. lots of problems in kurdistan. lord knows. but there is a chance. they do have an effective fighting force. they are broadly aligned with the interests of the western world and in a position to acquire control of some of the northern oil fields. and to secure those against the isis folks who have just taken over the largest refinery in the northern part of iraq. >> zach, dwhowhat do you think biggest pitfall is? >> i think turkey is by far the biggest pitfall but they have had a real change in their relationship over the last five years. so it could be less of one. but i do think the kurds are a group that love america. they are highly tactically and

technically competent in terms of operations. and they have a real stake here. so we should definitely be engaging with them. >> jonathan, going back to the political fallout from this. let's listen to new comments from house speaker john boehner on this subject in reaction to the president's handling so far of iraq. >> after the last election, i said that i hoped the president would seize this moment and take the lead. and here we are a year and a half later. you look at this president and you can't help but get the sense the wheels are coming off. >> should the president have done more sooner on iraq? >> well, what? you know, would john boehner have supported us bombing the syrian/iraqi border? to me, what happened to the idea of politics ending at the water's edge when there's a real international crisis? and it is sort of a new level of

chutzpah for those who were in strong support of this war, which cost a trillion dollars and 4500 american lives, plus many more wounded, to suddenly now be saying, i told you so or carping about this to a president who before he was in public office was right on the war, that this was a dumb war, done in a dumb fashion? so to me in terms of the politics, whatever mistakes obama may have made and not aiding the moderates in syria, they pale in comparison to the fact that he was fundamentally right on the biggest issue of -- maybe of our lifetime. the biggest foreign policy decision of our lifetimes and these critics in congress and elsewhere, and i would include myself in this because i was wrong also. but they should have the integrity to admit that they were wrong in 2003 about this war and put a sock in it when it comes to attacking a president who is in some real, you know,

difficulty now. not politically but in terms of figuring out what to do in a very complex situation. >> sure. i take your point about the initial misstep and we've seen everyone up to and including hillary clinton admit that they were wrong. mea culpa on their votes on that. but once you have the colin powell you broke it, you keep it philosophy in place, the question was, was there enough to try to mitigate these sectarian divides? >> no. >> were there enough moves to put sunnis in power? >> i don't think there was much we could have done. let's rewind the tape a little bit over the last year and a half or so. should obama have maybe aided the syrian moderates more? perhaps so. arguably yes. would that have prevented isis from moving across the border into iraq and then southward in iraq? it's hard to see how. could he have gone to war 18 months ago when the initial intelligence came through, when fallujah fell?

conceivably, yes. would the republicans who are now attacking him, whose constituents all oppose a new war, would they have supported that? doubtful. they tend to criticize him no matter what he does. i think we need to take anything that his critics are saying right now with a huge salt shaker full of salt. >> it's remarkable how fast we can go to crisis to politicized crisis in washington. david, speaking of chutzpah, we did hear from dick cheney who slammed the president, who stood up for the bush administration policies that he was a part of. take a listen to some of his choice moments. >> what do you say to those who say you were so wrong about so much at the expense of so many? >> no, i just fundamentally disagree. you have got to go back and look at the track record. we inherited a situation where there was no doubt in anybody's mind about the extent of the

saddam's involvement in the weapons of mass destruction. after 9/11, we were concerned about a following attack that would involve not just airline tickets and box cutters as the weapons but something far deadlier. it would have been irresponsible for us to act. we did do the right thing, and i think the troops performed magnifice magnificently. >> he is sounding increasingly defensive there. do you think current circumstances are a final condemnation of the decision to go in in the first place? >> no. what is -- the question is what is the strategic problem the united states has been trying to solve in the middle east all these many years, long before the current iraq war. it's the same problem always. the united states is not interested in making -- in keeping order internally in the region. that's beyond america's capacity to do. what the united states is trying to do is prevent the rise inside the middle east where so much of the world's oil is of a western hegemonic power.

it was the problem the united states was struggling with in the 1980s during the iran-iraq war. that was the saddam challenge and that is now the challenge from iran. >> we seem as far from that goal as we've ever been. i want to get a reaction on the ground from richard engel with the latest. nbc news' chief foreign correspondent. what reactions are you hearing in baghdad to this potential announcement from the president? >> well, not many people here have heard about it. they certainly haven't heard about the level of detail that some are suggesting in the united states that 100 special operations forces could be coming here to baghdad to help guide the iraqi government and effectively lead from behind its counterterrorism campaign against the isis militants. some people we have been speaking to think that would be fabulous. they want u.s. air strikes. and they think if u.s. special

troops have to be here on the ground to make those air strikes happen, then they'd be more than welcome. the -- this country is looking over the edge of an abyss. and everybody here knows that. and they think that the current political leadership here, the -- not just maliki but his entire government aren't able to handle this crisis. if they had been able to handle this crisis, iraqis say we wouldn't be in this crisis. we wouldn't have had an iraqi army that refused to fight for the government and they would like to see some american air power to reverse the momentum of these militants before they end up coming into baghdad and raising black flags or plunging this country into a horrible sectarian war which iraqis remember all too well. they fought a horrible sectarian war just a few years ago and they don't want to do it again. richard, you mentioned efforts to maybe get maliki to step out. we've just lost richard engel. so i'll go to you on this, zach.

do you think that there needs to be a leadership change for this situation to abate? >> you know, back in 2002-'03 we were talking about a leadership change in iraq at that time as well. and i think the question that needs to be answered if we're going to ask that question is what comes next. if we remove maliki, who is going to replace him and why is he a better option? and if our government can't provide that answer, then we might have to stick with the horse that we've got. >> richard engel, we have you back. >> it's the only way -- >> what do you think? are we still awaiting engel? okay. he's obviously in a tough place receptionwise. >> this is richard back. am i back with you? we were sorting out our technical things on this end. we were dark here for a second. >> you mentioned the quality of leadership there. do you think the obama administration will succeed in getting maliki to step down? >> well, there are meetings in

najaf, the holy shiite city of najaf in iraq. they are going on right now. they've been going on the last several days. and those meetings are exactly about changing the leadership here. seeing if a new coalition government, they are calling it a national unity government, could be formed. a national unity government that would not have nuri al maliki as the prime minister. he's been prime minister for eight years, roughly. and there's talk about trying to find some sort of consensus with sunni political parties, kurdish political parties. other members, even of maliki's own coalition to try and get out of this crisis. so iraqis hope that things proceed along this line -- these lines. i say iraqis, obviously can't speak for everyone, but several astute iraqis who i've been speaking to hope that this will play out. that you get an agreement in najaf where there's a new government here. the new government does not

include maliki. that opens the door for u.s. special operations forces to arrive here and effectively show the iraqi government how to operate all the weapons and all of the army divisions that the u.s. helped build for almost a decade during the u.s. military presence here. once that happens, once the troops are on the ground, they can call in drone strikes, call in air strikes. push this militant group back into syria and then hopefully iraq will get in a better place than it is right now. that's what some iraqis that i'm speaking to hope for. but they are not sure that's going to happen. they're not sure maliki will agree to step down. they're not sure if these air strikes are ever going to come. but that is one scenario how this could play out. >> a lot of unanswered questions there. we'll see how many of them are answered when the president enters that podium. we're looking at the image of that increasingly full white house briefing room.

and he is anticipated to arrive any moment. we're not exactly sure when. we'll bring it to you live as soon as it happens. zach, more than 4400 americans died while serving in iraq. many of them that you served with. the president declared this over, pulled american troops out. the fact that we may now return in any capacity, how does that make you feel about that investment of human life? >> you know, it's a question that me and a lot of my friends have been asking ourselves quite a bit lately. and i think, again, there's not an easy answer to that question. but at the end of the day, at least myself, and i can't speak for my fellow veterans, but a long time ago, i stopped tying their sacrifice to what could be accomplished in iraq. and when you were in the midst of a firefight, you are not fighting for flag. you aren't fighting for country. you aren't fighting for the future of iraq. you are fighting for the man on your left and the man on your right. and the sacrifices were made for the man on their left and the man on their right.

i think the question is what do we who survived the war, those who served over there, how do we live our lives? what contribution do we make with our lives? what are the lessons that we learned from the last decade that we've been at wars that we can prevent falling into these situations in the future. i think how those questions are answered throughout the lifetime of this -- these veterans, that's really what will amount to the sacrifice that was made. >> david, we talked to you earlier about the gop reaction to this and your being very much a voice of caution in that "atlantic" piece where you work and in other forms. how do you feel about some of these more hawkish elements out there urging maximum intervention. we have some sound from john mccain recently doing exactly that. take a listen. >> the president of the united states goes for fund-raising and golfing and now is fiddling while iraq burns.

we need to act, mr. president. but we also need to understand why we are where we are today. >> that was senator mccain this morning on the senate floor. david frum, is he making a miscalculation here? >> look, for those of us on the hawkish side, pro-war side and i served in the bush administration, i advocate forward the iraq war, many of us have a lot of bruises from that time. we took a lot of criticism. some of it fair. much of it we think not. so we have a crisis like this, the natural impulse is to look backwards and to say -- and i think that's what vice president cheney was doing. reargue a lot of things where you felt you didn't get a fair hearing. that's not a service to the country now. the country needs now is to -- is a very cold analysis of situation in iraq is what it is. what do we do? and the thing that people on the right-hand side of the spectrum have to offer that would be most use civil a hard appraisal of

the national interest of the united states. we do not need to go into iraq to do something. we do not need to go into iraq to show that we were brigright t some argument long ago. those interests now are not convergent with those of iran. they are very different from those of iran. our goal in that region is always to prevent the rise of an anti-western power. and cooperation with iran will not advance american interests. it will damage american interests. that's not say you can't make some kind of -- if iran is willing to pay a high enough price in terms of getting rid of its nuclear weapons, that we may help iran solve some of its problems in its next door neighbor. but peace in iraq is much more compelling and necessary for iran than it is for the united states. the united states is much farther away. >> you pointed out that some of these more hawkish arguments whipping people into a frenzy about this do seem to have a

tinge of trying to prove a point from long ago. i think regardless of where you fall on what kind of intervention is appropriate right now there's a robust case to be made for caution because these kinds of alliances of exactly the type you are talking about can sure backfire as we've seen in this region. we have a two-minute warning. the president is about to arrive. while we await him, i'm going to go to kelly o'donnell on capitol hill. kelly, is the president in a lose-lose situation here? it seems like as hawkish as he could be or as cautious as he could be, he's being accused of dropping the ball. >> it's so complicated because the president is not likely to go far enough to appease republicans who have been pounding him today on the senate floor in particular about a range of his foreign policy ideas. and certainly democrats are very concerned about the president kind of backtracking at all on his position to try to end the wars in iraq and afghanistan. it is a very perilous course for the president. there's an urgent crisis.

he needs to respond to that. we need him to take some steps along those lines. but politically, this is such an issue that a really riles the american voter, not wanting to see the u.s. further engaged. and yet at the same time, there are concerns, serious concerns about security and what the steps could be if this situation is not addressed and if there isn't some sort of stability or containment brought to iraq. there aren't any easy options for the -- >> all right, kelly. i'm going to have to get the rest of your thoughts later. the president is arriving just now. hold that thought. the president live right now. >> we've been meeting regularly to review the situation since the terrorist organization that operates in iraq and syria made advances inside of iraq. as i said last week, i sil poses a threat to the iraqi people, to the region and to u.s. interests. so i want to provide you an update on how we're responding to the situation. first, we are working to secure

our embassy and personnel operate ning inside of iraq. the president and i have no greater priority than the safety of our men and women serving overseas. so i've taken some steps to relocate is some of our embassy personnel and we've sent reinforcements to better secure our facilities. second, at my direction, we have significantly increased our intelligence, surveyance and reconnaissance assets so that we've got a better picture of what's taking place inside of iraq. and this will give us a greater understanding of what isil is doing, where it's located and how we might support efforts to counter this threat. third, the united states will continue to increase our support to iraqi security forces. we're prepared to create joint operations centers in baghdad and northern iraq to share intelligence and coordinate planning to confront the terrorist threat of isil. through our new counterterrorism partnership fund we're prepared

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

i want to emphasize, though, that the best and most effective response to a threat like isil will ultimately involve partnerships where local forces, like iraqis, take the lead. finally, the united states will lead a diplomatic effort to work with iraqi leaders and the countries in the region to support stability in iraq. at my direction, secretary kerry will depart this weekend for meetings in the middle east and europe where he'll be able to consult with our allies and partners and just as all iraqis neighbors must respect iraq's territorial integrity, all of iraq's neighbors have a vital interest in ensuring that iraq does not descend into civil war or become a safe haven for terrorists. above all, iraqi leaders must rise above their differences and come together around a political plan for iraq's future. shia, sunni, kurds, all iraqis

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

an inclusive political process, a more capable iraqi security force and counterterrorism efforts that deny groups like isil a safe haven. in closing, recent days have reminded us of the deep scars left by america's war in iraq. alongside the loss of nearly 4,500 american patriots, many veterans carry the wounds of that war and will for the rest of their lives. here at home, iraq sparked vigorous debates and intense emotions in the past, and we've seen some of those debates resurface. but what's clear from the last decade is the need for the united states to ask hard questions before we take action abroad. particularly military action. but the most important question we should all be asking, the issue we have to keep front and center, the issue that i keep front and center is what is in the national security interest of the united states of america.

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

but i don't think there's any secret that right now, at least, there is deep divisions between sunni, shia and kurdish leaders. and as long as those deep divisions continue or worsen, it's going to be very hard for an iraqi central government to direct an iraqi military to deal with these threats. we've consulted with maliki and we've said to him privately, we've said it publicly that whether he is prime minister or any other leader, aspires to lead the country, that it has to be an agenda in which sunni, shia and kurd all feel that they have the opportunity to advance their interests through the political process. and we've seen over the last two years, actually dating back to 2008, 2009, but i think worse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

juliet halprin? >> the united states has been slow to provide significant weapons and training directly to the syrian opposition. has the expansion of the syria war into iraq changed your mind about the type of weapons and training you now are willing to give the opposition there? is that what prompted secretary kerry to stay in syria we're augmenting our assistance and can you elaborate on what you are doing now that you weren't doing before. >> you know, that assessment about the dangers of what was happening in syria existed since the very beginning of the syrian civil war. the question has never been whether we thought this was a serious problem. the question has always been, is there the capacity of moderate opposition on the ground to absorb and counteract extremists that might have been pouring in as well as an assad regime

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

maximize what we can do to support moderate opposition that not only can counteract the brutality of assad but also can make sure that in the kinds of sunnis, they don't think their only alternative is mr. assad or extremist groups like isil or al nasra. >> -- as the secretary of state alluded to? >> i think the key to both syria and iraq is going to be a combination of what happens inside the country, working with moderate syrian opposition, working with an iraqi government that is inclusive, and us laying down a more effective counterterrorism platform that gets all the countries in the region pulling in the same

direction. and i alluded to this in the west point speech. this is -- i talked about it today with respect to the counterterrorism partnership fund. there is going to be a long-term problem counterterrorism partnep fund. there is going to be a long-term problem in this region in which we have to build and partner with countries that are committed to our interests, our values, and at the same time we have immediate problems with terrorist organizations that may be advancing. and rather than try to play whack-a-mole wherever these terrorist organizations build up, we have to make sure we have effective partnerships, make sure they have capacity, some of the assets that have been devoted solely to afghanistan over the last decade we've got

to shift to make sure we have coverage in the middle east and north africa. you look at a country like yemen, a very impoverished country, and one that has its own sectarian or ethnic divisions. there is a -- we do have a committed partner in president hadi and his government and we have been able to help develop their capacities without putting large numbers of u.s. troops on the ground. at the same time as we've got enough ct -- or counter terrorism capabilities that we're able to go after folks that might rye to hit our embassy or might be trying to export terrorism into europe or the united states. and looking at how we can create more of those models is going to be part of the solution in dealing with both syria and iraq, but in order for us to do

that, we still need to have actual governments on the ground that we can partner with. and that we've got some confidence are going to pursue the political policies inclusiveness in yemen, for example, a natural dialogue, but help to give people a sense that there is a legitimate political outlet. >> thank you, sir. going back to where you see prime minister al maliki playing a role at this point, you said it's a time to rise above differences, that there's a need for inclusive government. how much clout does the united states ultimately have with any of the leaders at this point? >> i think they'll recognize that unlike some other players in the region, we don't have

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

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

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

not plunge back into the abyss. let's see if they can resolve this politically. but they don't have a lot of times. and you have a group like isil that is doing everything it can to send the country back into chaos. so one of the messages that we have for prime minister maliki but also for the speaker of the house and, you know, the other leadership inside of iraqi is get going on this -- on this government formation. it will make it a lot easier for them to shape a military strategy. it will also make it possible for us to partner much more effectively than we can currently. >> given the prime minister's track record, is he a unifier? can he play that role after what we've seen play out over the last couple of weeks? >> i think the task is before him and other iraqi leaders as we speak. right now, they can make a

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

security forces, that we're getting a better assessment of what's on the ground and that we're recognizing the dangers of isil over the long-term and developing the kinds of= comprehensive counterterrorism strategy we're going to need to deal with this issue. and that's going to involve some short-term responses to make sure that isil is not obtaining capacity to endanger us directly or our allies and partners, but it also is going to require some long-term strategies, as well. because part of what we've seen with respect to isil is a broader trend that i talked about at west point, a -- rather than a&trz single network, a discreet network of terrorists.

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

an armed force on what have of the shia, and if it is framed i% that fashion, then that probably worsens the situation and the prospect for government formation that would be constructed over the long-term. you know, i think just as iraq's leaders have to make decisions, i think iran has heard from us. we've indicated to them that it is important for them to avoid steps that might encourage the kind of sectarian splits that might lead to civil war. and the one thing that i think is -- you know, has to be emphasized, we have deep differences with iran across the board on a whole host of