rachel has the night off. we are continuing to cover the breaking news tonight. at this hour, the united states is weighing taking him tear action in iraq, again. throughout the day today, president obama met with his national security team to consider authorizing american air strikes in iraq to protect iraqi citizens trapped by islamic militants in the northern part of that country. the united states has found itself in this position, has found itself once again considering a military operation in iraq tonight. it's helpful to go back to six months to february, february of this year, because it was in february of this year that serious fracturing among terrorist groups spilled into public view when al qaeda released a statement disavowing any association with isis. isis is not a branch of al qaeda, the statement red. isis does not have an organization organizational relationship with al qaeda. and perhaps more importantly, al

qaeda is not responsible for the actions that isis takes. al qaeda and isis were once united together, it used to be called al qaeda in iraq. these two sunni islamic terrorist groups fought together side by side in syria against the ruling regime there. but the islamic state of iraq and syria began to ignore al qaeda leaders as they aggressivery expanded across large swaths of western syria. they took control of a border crossing between syria and iraq. they moved quickly. they moved brutally. and it was in part the group's extreme brutality that eventually alienated even al qaeda. their indiscriminate public killings and torture led al qaeda to fight against isis in syria, alongside more moderate elements of the syrian opposition. al qaeda deemed isis too brutal to be associated with. that was back in february. since then, isis has lived up to that designation and more than

lived up to it. isis' goal is to create their own islamic state called a caliphate governed by their own extreme version of islam. that would include all of syria and larges swaths of iraq. in the recent months isis has been swift and merciless and also successful on their way to achieving that vision. isis has captured many cities spanning from northwestern syria to northeastern iraq. back in january they took fallujah in central iraq that had a unique significance for the united states, not just because fallujah is one of iraq's largest cities. only about 40 miles from its capital of baghdad. but also because fallujah was the site of one of the most hard fought and deadliest battles for u.s. troops during the iraq war. isis has captured oil fields in both syria and iraq, which they have used to fund their operations. they have reportedly captured saddam hussein's hometown of tikrit. they bragged online that they staged a mass execution there. but perhaps one of the their most valuable gains so far has been iraq's second largest city,

mosul. in mosul, the iraqi military tried and failed to off. it is notable because of its size and location in a strategic spot that links iraq and turkey and syria. and tonight it is the plight of a city called sinjar in iraq that is located roughly 80 miles west of mosul. it's the plight of that city that is causing the united states to weigh reengaging militarily in iraq. over the weekend, as isis continued their brutal land grab in iraq, they seized the city of sinjar, which is home to an ethnic and religious minority group. the yazidi people are not muslims. they practice a religion that is derived from christianity and islam and judaism and other ancient influences. when isis took over their towns, it forced them to flee for their lives. isis announced to kill them unless they renounced their religion. they fled into the mountains

surrounding their town. and now they're stuck in those mountains with no food and no water. they are surrounded by isis forces which have vowed to kill them if they try to return home from the mountain. it's estimated that 40,000 people, most of them women and children, are stranded in that mountainside right now, dying of dehydration, of hunger, unable to flee or look for water because isis will kill them if they descend. several children have already died in those mountains. there are tens of thousands more trapped this in dire need of food and water. their plight led to this moment today. the united states debating military action in iraq. in march of 2011 president obama authorized intervention in libya. he authorized air strikes against moammar gadhafi. he made a humanitarian case for that military intervention. here is how he explained it back then. >> the united states and the world faced a choice. gadhafi declared he would show

no mercy to his own people. he compared them to rats. and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. in the past we had seen him hang civilians in the streets and kill over a thousand people in a single day. now we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. we knew if we waited one more day, benghazi, a city nearly the size of charlotte could have suffered a massacre that could have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world. it was not in our national interests to let that happen. i refused to let that happen. and so nine days ago after consulting the bipartisanship leadership of congress, i

authorized military action to stop the killing and force u.n. security council resolution un 973. >> isis' stranglehold in iraq is also a humanitarian crisis. isis has targeted and killed innocent civilians because they're members of a religious minority group. it has trap and vowed to kill tens of thousands more of them. those civilians are trapped right now, in desperate need of food and water. so tonight the united states once again faces the question, will we intervene? will we use american military power in iraq to try to stop what it seems like could be an impending ethnic genocide. this hour we know there is an operation under way to air drop supplies to those people tapped in sinjar, iraq that is in part a military operation to get those supplies to these people. we are still awaiting word of a decision by the white house on air strikes and whether we're on the verge of american military intervention in iraq once more.

joining us is chief pentagon correspondent jim miklaszewski. thanks for taking the time tonight. >> if i can interrupt you for a second. >> go ahead. >> u.s. military officials have told nbc news that those humanitarian air drops have been completed over the sinjar mountains where up to 40,000 of the yazidi members of the small religious sect had to plea from sinjar from the isis rentals. now according to officials, there were c-17s used for the air drops that were escorted by american f-16 fighter jets. we're told the air drops of food, water, medical supplies,

has in fact been completed successfully and all u.s. planes are now out of that specific airspace, steve. >> thanks. that's important information. i think it leads to the next question of how the successful completion of this humanitarian portion. >> i would say this phase of it. >> phase. >> who knows how long the cities are going to be stuck up on that mountain. point, unless -- unless isis rebels actually move in and physically threaten those yezidis, those taking refuge on top of the mountain, then u.s. military air strikes against that group of isis is highly unlikely. so it may be a situation unless they find some way, some kind of relief valve to escape their situation on top of the mountain that additional relief operations may be required in the future. >> yeah, well that's one thing

that's confused me today because we're talking about the potential for u.s. air strikes here. would the u.s. air strikes only be about liberating those, the trapped yazidi from that mountain, or we're hearing reports potentially of isis moving closer to the capital region of the kurdish region of iraq. would it also be -- air strikes potentially be aimed at doing that as well? what specifically are we talking about here with the goal of air strikes, potentially? >> well, it's interesting because in terms of u.s. military air operations over iraq, the white house today very strongly emphasized the humanitarian missions. we're told that was pretty much the goal of the president when they started out putting these plans together. it was an emphasis on the humanitarian mission with a backup combat mission if those refugees were threatened. but at the same time, now, we find isis fighters poised on the border of that capital city,

erbil, 1.5 million people in the city. but more importantly, not only is it a part of a larger u.s. strategy in trying to stitch together some kind of government in that part of the -- stable government in that part of iraq, but it also contains a u.s. consulate with some 30 to 50 state department workers. there are some 40 american military advisers there working with iraqis. so, they do have somewhat of a stake and somewhat of a reason to issue a veiled warning to the isis rebels that is if you advance on the city of erbil, itself, you will be subject to u.s. air strikes. but i can tell you, steven, ultimately nobody in the white house, nobody in the pentagon, wants to get involved in a shooting war with isil. they realize with the first bomb drop the u.s. is not quite but almost all in.

and one of the major concerns is that they don't want to become caught right in the middle of a sectarian war. they don't want to be seen as the baghdad's private air force attacking isis. they'd like to do whatever they can to restrict isis' ability to further its gains, to move about the country freely, potentially attack baghdad. but the last thing the u.s. wants to is get caught in the middle of that war. >> all right. nbc news pentagon correspondent jim miklashevski. thanks for your time tonight. really appreciate that. we should let you know, we are receiving word right now that president obama is preparing to address the nation at 9:30 eastern time. just about 20 minutes from now from the state dining room. he'll be addressing the nation on the subject of iraq. we'll obviously have full coverage of his statement when that comes, expected 9:30 tonight eastern time. now let's bring in nbc news

chief foreign affairs correspondent andrea mitchell. andrea, i really appreciate you taking the time tonight. so i guess the first thing i want to start on is this point that jim was raising, this might be the first of many, or at least several humanitarian missions because these are people who are trapped in a mountain, they feel if they come down, isis wants to kill them. and it strikes me, it raises a more simple question here of how do you get isis out from away of the bottom of the mountain, from the town they've taken over? is that a job ultimately for the iraqi army? is that a job ultimately for the united states? >> as mik was saying, the last thing this president wants to is get involved in clearing the isis members out from where they are encircling these trapped yazidis. this is a humanitarian crisis primarily initially. i think it is conceivable that certainly if any american airlift operation, any of those planes were fired upon, they would be fired back. and if there were an attack on erbil as mik was saying, all our

people there, the consulate, our military advisers, erbil is a key part of the iraqi solution, according to diplomatic officials. i was there with john kerry just a number of weeks ago, and he was very keen to be supporting the kurdish leaders there. but holding them from creating their own country, keeping them as part of a united iraq, is a very fragile but important goal right now. and interestingly, just today, there was some focus on the diplomatic front at getting a solution to a new government. getting an alternative, a shiite alternative to maliki. something that they've been trying to do for weeks and weeks. so, as they were moving on this front, the humanitarian crisis evolved. there is no way to get those isis fighters out without getting engaged militarily. and it is conceivable that you would have turkish or jordanian or kurdish forces joined with iraqi forces but right now there is very little confidence that

iraqi air force personnel could do this job. >> you mentioned you were in erbil recently and talking about the significance of erbil in iraq. the areas isis has taken so far, basically sunni areas, sunni movement taking sunni areas and significant of erbil being you're moving into kurdish territory. mosul, the largest city they've taken. erbil, you'd be taking kurdish territory. we feel the hesitancy of the obama administration to get involved in any way militarily in iraq again. but at the same time, what is the calculation, what do you suspect the calculation is in the white house when it comes to protecting a city like erbil? >> erbil has to be protected. it is an economic force. it is oil wealthy. it is very, very well developed. it is a hub of commerce. it is the future of the kurds. the kurds have been the most loyal allies of the united states. we have facilities there.

we have military advisers, as i say. we have a consulate. there's no question that the u.s. would be involved in some fashion to try to protect erbil. other big question now is mosul and the capture that's been reported of the big dam that saddam built in mosul. if that dam is blown up by isis as a way of flooding out the shiite cities to the south and even affecting baghdad, that would be another crisis. so isis was blocked from taking baghdad. they began to lose steam. they then took the opportunity to move north and to move west and now they are controlling this territory, and they are attacking and ravaging these minority communities. and it is -- it is a criminal operation, but it is beyond any description, what has been described by people who are up there, by bobby ghosh who knows the area so well, talking to him earlier here on msnbc. it is a destruction of mosques, of artifacts, of sculptures, but

most importantly, of people. these communities are being devastated. men are being killed. women are being attacked and kidnapped as plunder. children are being murdered. >> do we know, this, andrea, sounds like a basic question, so forgive me. i'm curious. do we know what is preventing right now -- if isis has an aim of killing the yazidi, what is preventing them from going boo the notice and doing that, if they know that tens of thousands of them are up there? why aren't they doing that? >> there are logistical problems. they don't -- that's a very good question. i don't know the topography well enough to know why they are not climbing up after these people who have retreated because these are largely unarmed people and women and children. so you've got thousands and thousands of people who need to be rescued and long term, and it seems from briefings that have been done by the white house to the hill tonight, because under various notification rules and

protocols, the leadership of the hill and other committee members have been notified. this is going to be a long-term engagement. this is not a quick operation. >> and just one final question on erbil. we were talking, again, about the significance of it, to iraq and to sort of the entire, you know, enterprise over there. but i wonder, do you have a sense in terms of how imminent the threat is of isis making a move on the city of erbil? >> that's another good question. we don't. and we need better ground information from what is going on there. but i don't know how imminent that is. i don't know how close they are to erbil. but if they were very close, you would see an evacuation of the american team certainly. but you've got oil pipelines, you've got the wealth of iraq at stake when you're talking about any attempt to capture this kurdish area. >> nbc news chief foreign affairs correspondent andrea mitchell. really appreciate you taking the time tonight. thank you very much.

again, we're now awaiting a live address to the nation from president obama. he's expected to speak from the state dining room at the white house. that's at 9:30 eastern time. just over ten minutes from now. stay with us. be right back. female announcer: sunday's your last chance to save big

during sleep train's triple choice sale. for a limited time, you can choose to save hundreds on beautyrest and posturepedic mattress sets. or choose $300 in free gifts with sleep train's most popular tempur-pedic mattresses. you can even choose 48 months interest-free financing on the new tempur-choice,

with head-to-toe customization. the triple choice sale ends sunday at sleep train. ♪ sleep train ♪ ♪ your ticket to a better night's sleep ♪ you're looking at live pictures from the white house. this is the state dining room where we expect president obama to address the nation from just moments from now. stay with us.

today news broke that sunni militants captured the largest dam in iraq, potentially devastating development for iraqi civilians. right now nbc news reports the white house has completed this phase of the humanitarian mission and is weighing military

strikes, what jim miklashevski reported at the top of the show. one of the many factors going into the president's decision was the u.s. citizens' well documented war fatigue. all this comes as support for military action is at historic lows among american people. now let's bring in jeff mason, white house correspondent for riot reuters. jeff, we're about ten minutes away apparently from hearing from the president. do you have any sense what we can expect him to say to the nation tonight? >> steve, he'll start by talking about what just happened. this humanitarian mission has been accomplished. that u.s. planes were involved in dropping off meals and dropping off water and dropping off medicine to the tens of thousands of religious minorities who have been displaced by isis. he'll talk about why that was important. and then he'll talk about what the united states' interest is in being in iraq right now. i think the fact that that setting is the state dining room of the white house means he's not going to take any questions. that means journalists won't have a chance to press him as to

whether the next option or next operation will be a military strike, so i suspect he will not talk about military strikes, but he will -- if he does, it will echo what josh ernest, the white house spokesperson, said earlier today, was that any military operation by the united states in iraq would be limited in scope and there is not a role for boots on the ground, that this is not a time for the united states to get back into a major war. >> do we -- no boots on the ground, obviously the suggestion there is air strikes. when they say limited in scope, that seems so nebulous, i guess. do we have a sense -- do you have any sense in particular what they might have in mind potentially when it comes to military involvement? >> i think it's purposely nebulous. i think they don't want to define what that means. what they want to do, taking into account the polls you referred to at the beginning of this segment, is reassure americans we're not starting another war. but they want to leave the option open to do some significant military strikes that would stop the advance of

this group, of isis, or at least curb the advance that they have successfully done so far. >> and do you have any sense -- i mean, you know, we went into iraq in the first place now over ten years ago. of course, there was a congressional debate, a congressional vote on that. how much latitude the white house has here to act without congress' authorization? >> well, i think -- it was interesting what andrea already mentioned that there have been communications between the white house and congress about this. clearly they don't want to run into the situation that they have with the operation to extract bowe bergdahl from afghanistan, recently being criticized for not talking to congress. in terms of latitude, i think that's something that we'll have to explore the next coming days. certainly the white house wants to keep its options opened. but, again, as we said before, they're not looking for latitude from congress to start a major war. there's no appetite among the american people, and really among either party for that.

that said, you may start seeing some more criticism of the president from republicans in the coming days about the fact that this situation in iraq has deteriorated so much and they'll find a reason to blame the president for that largely because of that troop pullout in 2011 which was such a big part of the president's campaign promise in 2008. >> yeah, i'm curious what you make of that. we've heard that rhetoric before, certainly, republicans especially in the last six months or so pointing back to 2011 saying that wasn't handled the right way, that was the president too hastily trying to get headlines about getting out of iraq. do you sense any connection between that decision back then and where we are right now? >> well, i think there are two sides to that. certainly republicans will say -- many republicans will say the obama administration should have worked harder to agree a deal with the iraqi government to keep some u.s. troops in iraq. the obama administration will say, hey, we tried and the iraqi government did not agree to provide immunity to u.s. troops

and we're not going to leave them there as a result of that. again, going back to the core political argument that barack obama made as a candidate in 2007 and 2008, was to extract the united states from iraq. and he feels like that was something, a promise he has kept in 2011 which makes it all the more ironic now that as president, he's facing the possibility of further u.s. military involvement in that country. >> all right. jeff mason, white house correspondent for "reuters." thanks for your time tonight. appreciate that. joining us now, steve clemens, foreign policy expert, msnbc contributor as well. steve, thanks for being here. i'll start with this question. i mean, we've been talking about -- there's a couple different issues here. there's the yezidi on this mountain now with their lives in danger. there's also the question of the city of erbil, sort of the capital region of the kurdish area of iraq where apparently isis is about 40 miles away right now. we had andrea mitchell on in the last segment saying she's not sure how imminent the isis threat is to erbil, but as a

bottom-line issue, erbil cannot fall. i wonder from your standpoint looking at this, we have the white house now saying limited in scope, no boots on the ground. at what point, though, does that thinking sort of interact with this reality of erbil being such a significant city? >> well, it's shifting now. we're going to learn a bit more in a few minutes. not necessarily toward armed strikes. though i tell you the white house and department of defense and others have been so buttoned up, we don't know what they're about to do. andrea is right. erbil would be a big game changer. we are really close with kurdistan. big investment in trying to make kurdistan both play along with the baghdad government but also secure itself. we've given them lots of support to help the peshmerga. i received word the president is going to announce more aid to iraq. i don't know what form that aid will be. he will say while he doesn't want to get bogged down further in iraq, it's important to stand by these people. the department of defense just

confirmed they've made the air drop and the first wave of mission has happened. so, there is stuff tilting forward, and, you know, it makes one wonder how if this is a libya-like or benghazi-like situation with a mountain that is encircled by isis troops, we wouldn't do more, but the president is trying to make sure that we don't have a slippery slope that takes us deeper into the middle of a civil war. >> yes. i'm curious what you think the calculation, the strategy might be there. you talk about we have the mountain, we have apparently a completed humanitarian mission right now and basically until and unless isis leaves from the bottom of this mountain, it seems like you'll have to have perpetual humanitarian missions to keep the people alive until it's safe to come down from the mountain. is this basically a move on the united states' part to buy time for the iraqi government to be in a better position to deal with this or some other end game here?

>> i thank are buying time, but i also think we're trying to figure out ways to turbocharge the iraqi military to be more active. we'll be puppeteers behind the scene, try to make them much more effective in fighting isis and ramp that up as fast as we can. >> all right. steve clemens, msnbc foreign policy analyst. thanks so much for your time tonight. joining us now, kristen welker, nbc news' white house correspondent. any minute now we're hearing from the president. what's the latest there? >> kell, steve, i can tell you that president obama has been in meetings really throughout the day starting early this morning in the situation with his national security team trying to weigh his options in terms of how to deal with this humanitarian crisis. and as we have now reported, the decision was made to move forward with those air drops delivering humanitarian aid in the form of food and water. and part of the reason why this announcement is coming after the fact is because this was such a dicey mission. it's a slippery slope. they wanted to make sure that

this went off without a hitch. here comes president obama. back to you. >> good evening. today i authorized two operations in iraq. targeted air strikes to protect our american personnel, and a humanitarian effort to help save thousands of iraqi civilians who are trapped on a mountain without food and water and facing almost certain death. let me explain the actions we're taking and why. first, i said in june as the terrorist group isil began an advance across iraq that the united states would be prepared to take targeted military action in iraq if and when we determined that the situation required it. in recent days, these terrorists have continued to move across iraq and have neared the city of erbil where american diplomats and civilians serve at our consulate and american military personnel advise iraqi forces. to stop the advance on erbil, i've directed our military to

take targeted strikes against isil terrorists convoys should they move toward the city. we intend to stay vigilant and take action if these terrorist forces threaten our personnel or facilities anywhere in iraq. including our consulate in erbil and our embassy in baghdad. we're also providing urgent assistance to iraqi government and kurdish forces so they can more effectively wage the fight against isil. second, at the request of the iraqi government, we've begun operations to help save iraqi civilians stranded on the mountain. as isil has marched across iraq, it has waged a ruthless campaign against innocent iraqis, and these terrorists have been especially barbaric toward religious minorities including christian and yezidis, a small and ancient religious sect. countless iraqis have been displaced and chilling reports describe isil militants rounding up families, conducting mass

executions, and enslaving women. in recent days, yezidi women, men, and children from the area of sinjar have fled for their lives and thousands, perhaps tens of thousands are now hiding high up on the mountain with little but the clothe on their backs. they're without food, they're without water. people are starving. and children are dying after thirst. meanwhile, isil forces below have called for the systemic destruction of the entire yezidi people which would constitute genocide. these innocent families are faced with horrible choice. descend the mountain, be slaughtered, or stay and slyly slowly die of thirst and hunger. i said before the united states cannot and should not intervene every time there's a crisis in the world. let me be clear about why we must act and act now. when we face a situation like we do on that mountain, innocent people facing the prospect of

violence on a horrific scale, when we have a mandate to help, in this case a request from the iraqi government, and when we have the unique capabilities to help avert a massacre, then i believe the united states of america cannot turn a blind eye. we can act carefully and responsibly to prevent a potential act of genocide. that's what we're doing on that mountain. i, therefore, authorized targeted air strikes if necessary to help forces in iraq as they fight to break the siege of mt. sinjar and protect the civilians trapped there. already american aircraft have begun conducting humanitarian air drops of food and water to help these desperate men, women, and children survive. earlier this week one iraqi in the area cried to the world, there is no one coming to help. well, today america is coming to help. we're also consulting with other countries and the united nations who have called for action to address this humanitarian crisis.

i know that many of you are rightly concerned about any american military action in iraq, even limited strikes like these. i understand that. i ran for this office in part to end our war in iraq and welcome our troops home, and that's what we've done. as commander in chief, i will not allow the united states to be dragged into fighting another war in iraq. and so even as we support iraqis as they take the fight to these terrorists, american combat troops will not be returning to fight in iraq. because there is no american military solution to the larger crisis in iraq. the only lasting solution is reconciliation among iraqi communities and stronger iraqi security forces. however, we can and should support moderate forces who can bring stability to iraq. so even as we carry out these two missions, we will continue

to pursue a broader strategy that empowers iraqis to confront this crisis. iraqi leaders need to come together and forge a new government that represents the legitimate interests of all iraqis and that can fight back against the threats like isil. iraqis have named a new president, a new speaker of parliament, and are seeking consensus on a new prime minister. this is the progress that needs to continue in order to reverse the momentum of the terrorists who prey on iraq's divisions. once iraq has a new government, the united states will work with it and other countries in the region to provide increased support to deal with this humanitarian crisis and counterterrorism challenge. none of iraq's neighbors have an interest in this terrible suffering or instability. and so we'll continue to work with our friends and allies to help refugees get the shelter and food and water they so desperately need and help iraqis push back against isil. the several hundred american advisers that i ordered to iraq will continue to assess what more we can do to help train, advise, and support iraqi forces going forward.

and just as i consulted congress on the decisions i made today, we will continue to do so going forward. my fellow americans, the world is confronted by many challenges, and while america has never been able to right every wrong, america has made the world a more secure and prosperous place. and our leadership is necessary to underwrite the global security and prosperity that our children and our grandchildren will depend on. we do so by adhering to a set of core principles. we do whatever is necessary to protect our people. we support our allies when they're in danger. we lead coalitions of countries to uphold international norms and strive to stay true to the fundamental values, the desire to live with basic freedom and dignity, that is common to human beings wherever they are. that's why people all over the world look to the united states of america to lead.

and that's why we do. so let me close by assuring you that there is no decision that i take more seriously than the use of military force. over the last several years, we have brought the vast majority of our troops home from iraq and afghanistan, and i have been careful to resist calls to turn time and again to our military because america has other tools in our arsenal than our military. we can also lead with the power of our diplomacy, our economy, and our ideals. but when the lives of american citizens are at risk, we will take action. that's my responsibility as commander in chief. when many thousands of innocent civilians are faced with the danger of being wiped out, and we have the capacity to do something about it, we will take action. that is our responsibility as americans. that's a hallmark of american leadership. that's who we are. so tonight we give thanks to our men and women in uniform, especially our brave pilots and

crews over iraq, who are protecting our fellow americans and saving the lives of so many men, women, and children that they will never meet. they represent american leadership at its best. as a nation, we should be proud of them and of our country's enduring commitment to uphold our own security and the dignity of our fellow human beings. god bless our armed forces, and god bless the united states of america. >> all right. we just heard from president obama. the president saying that he has authorized targeted u.s. military strikes in iraq to protect american interests. kristen welker is back at the white house for us. kristen, you just heard that. take us through what you made of the statement from the president. sounded like two different things. humanitarian drops which we knew about. he's talking about air strikes and seem to be saying only if necessary. sort of a contingency on the air strikes. take us through what you heard. >> i think that's right.

i think that is the major headline, of course. we knew he was going to come out and announce the humanitarian aid had been dropped in the form of food and water, but the real headline here in addition to that is the fact that the president announced that he had authorized military air strikes if it is deemed necessary. so that is a contingency, and he said it depends on a few things. one, if this administration believes that the extremist forces are moving into the city of erbil, of course, the united states has a consulate there. and number two, if it is deemed necessary to break the siege if those 40,000 religious minorities cannot come down from that mountain, if they are essentially trapped. if they continue to be trapped, if the only way to get them off of that mountain is to authorize military strikes, the president tonight saying that he is prepared to do that. we know that military aircraft is at the ready should the president signal the green light. one other headline that i would point out, the fact that you heard the president use the term "genocide."

he said he came to this conclusion because he wanted to prevent a potential genocide. prevent something like we saw in rwanda. so that frames the thinking here behind the scenes tonight. we know that the president has been in meetings throughout the day as he's been trying to determine exactly what actions to take here. you also heard the president reiterate something that we've heard consistently from this administration which is that the iraqi government needs to be more inclusive. they have been calling on prime minister nuri al maliki to create a more inclusive government for months now as they've been tracking this escalating crisis in iraq. so, again, tonight you heard president obama say that. and reiterate that there are not going to be u.s. boots on the ground. again, as he said, he ran on a platform of withdrawing from iraq. so in an attempt to stay true to that, he has authorized the possibility of air strikes, but, again, no american boots on the ground. back to you. >> all right. kristen welker, nbc news' white house correspondent joining us tonight. appreciate the coverage there.

joining us now, paul rieckhoff, founder and executive director of the iraq and afghanistan veterans of america. paul, thanks for being here tonight. >> thanks, steve. >> a lot there in obviously what the president just said. as kristen was taking us through the issue of air strikes. the president saying it's a contingency, if he deems it necessary to free the yezidi people from the mountains, he might do it then. if isis makes a move toward the city of erbil, he might make it then. contingencies. but obviously big news with that. he also made a point of saying, quote, i will not allow the united states to be dragged into fighting another war in iraq. that's the first thing everybody is obviously thinking about in this country right now. when you look at that, the situation in erbil, specifically, if isis forces were to start moving on erbil, apparently they're only 40 miles away right now. are you confident air strikes could take care of that? >> i have no idea. most of us have no idea. the president is in a unique position to have a source of information we don't know about. it's obviously a very dynamic

situation, as combat often is. for our community, we're always pinned to, does this mean boots on the ground, more troops in iraq? our community is always concerned about whether our brothers and sisters are going to get phone calls. and that's been a very, very tough time for us over the last few years watching this situation unfold in iraq. we've shed blood there, lost friends there. we still have iraqi friends there that we're concerned about. i think it's a very trying time for our military. if there's one thing we can underscore is the heroism and bravery of the pilots, people on the ground. there are a small number of military folks there. and the folks who continue to fight and die in afghanistan every day. >> given your unique perspective, he made a specific point of saying he's said in the past the u.s. can't intervene militarily in every situation around the world. so many situations in the world you can look at and say if only we put the united states military power behind us, we could do something positive. he's saying this one, though, passes that test. he invoked, as kristen said, he invoked the term, genocide. listening to him, knowing what you know about the situation over there, do you agree in a basic level, the situation he described tonight does warrant some sort of u.s. intervention?

>> sounds like it. what kind of intervention, we don't know. it's clear now that they've dropped food and water. they've dropped thousands of gallons of water and thousands of mre easy to people whose lives may depend on it. if the u.s. can do that safely, it's our obligation to do that. what happens beyond that, we don't know. there's obviously tremendous war fatigue in this country in the civilian population, also in the military. so we need to know what the is plan, what happens next, what is it going to look like in six months or a year? frankly, most of american has turned their eyes away from iraq as it continued to spiral downward over the last couple years. veterans are watching. we know how this has gone south, how bad isis is and could potentially bleed over into our personal lives that have been so adversely affected by over ten years of war. >> he went out of his way to say, this was a request made to him by the iraqi government. i wonder what you make of that. i guess there's two different ways of looking at that. one is that it sort of contributes to the sense of urgely around this. taking place in iraq, the government of iraq saying to the united states, we can't handle this, we need your help. if you want this to stop, you're going to have to help us.

there's a sense of urgency there. the other side of that, i guess, though, the purpose of iraq war in part. the purpose of the reconstruction effort after going in was iraq would be able to handle situations like this on its own. we're in the middle of 2014 and they're turning to us for help. what do you feel when you hear that? >> it's a total mess. those who have been on the ground know it. whether in 2003 or there now, it's a complete mess. we can't unwind that now, but i think we have to look forward. i think the question that i and most american troops often ask, is it only going to be us? is the rest of the world going to stand by and let this happen as well? we can't do it alone and can't be only a military solution. that's part of why iraq got into this situation. the economic pieces weren't in police. political reconciliation wasn't in place. i hope after many years of war america understands you can't solve everything with military, gun and bombs. it's much more complicated and much more in-depth and it looks like it may take a long time. >> timetable is something people are thinking about a lot right now. again, the issue here of military -- of air strikes is an issue of he's saying it's a contingency. when you look at the situation

at the mountain there with the yezidi people, tens of thousands in the mountain right now, it does seem like, look, we completed apparently a humanitarian mission there tonight, but we're going to have to keep doing that until and unless isis goes away. >> there's no solution presented to what to do about isis. that's what we're all stuck with right now. for our community, especially, earlier today we were with the president talking about the va scandal and how we haven't taken care of the folks who were in iraq the first time. there has to be an honest conversation how much our country can do and uphold our obligations overseas and here at home. there are still veterans who served in iraq who are stuck on waiting lists who have been the result of cooked books and haven't gotten their benefits. we have to take care of them at the same time. it's oddly come full circle here in one day. >> that was the other piece of news, getting overshadowed by what the president said to the country. paul rieckhoff, thanks for your time tonight. >> thanks, steve. >> we appreciate that. going to bring in former pennsylvania congressman, patrick murphy. he's the fission iraq war

veteran to serve in congress, now an msnbc contributor. patrick, thanks for taking a few minutes tonight. again, we were talking about this with paul, but the first thing that every american thinks of, i imagine especially every veteran thinks of when they hear the president talking about military intervention in iraq, boots on the ground, getting dragged into something bigger than we thought it was going to be. what did you make of the case the president made tonight? does it meet the standard in your mind that he set? >> i think so. i think he was spot-on, steve. what the president said was we did a humanitarian effort, doesn't mean an act of congress. what he said was really isis, don't make a move. these 40,000 minorities, these refugees that you're trying to kill and murder, if you take one more step toward them, then i'm going to take action, military action. now, he let congress know about it. under the war powers act, we know that's constitutional, but, you know, there's a debate in congress whether or not the war powers act is constitutional or not. the bottom line is, steve, the military is asked once again to solve a problem or come to the

aid of the maliki government, and the maliki government, the solution is a political one, and it's reconciliation. let's hope we find a solution now. we can't wait more weeks, can't wait more months. maliki needs to step down now. >> you know, he's saying if you take one more step toward these people, toward these people in the mountains, you know, then we'll come after you, so don't do that. it does freeze in place a situation -- they've got these -- isis has got these people's town. they've come in, taken it over. they forced them up to the mountain. so it's one thing to say, don't go into the mountains, you know, it's another thing to say, get out of the town. let them come down from the mountain. let them take their town back. do you think anything the president said tonight will have that affect? that might require more looking at the record of isis here. >> right. that's where you're talking about collateral damage, steve. you can't just do it with an air force. you do need boots on the ground and america doesn't want boots on the ground because isis right there in that town is not a clear and present danger to americans.

now, isis, as a terror organization, they are worse than al qaeda. >> yeah. patrick, i don't mean to interrupt you. you just said a phrase there, obviously that's such a powerful phrase. boots on the ground. the president going out of his way in the speech tonight to say no boots on the ground. as somebody who's obviously an expert on this, looking at the situation, looking at these goals and objectives, am i hearing you right, are you suggesting in your mind to accomplish the goals of getting isis out of this town, to keep isis potentially from erbil, it might require boots on the ground to really do that job right? >> i don't think that should be the decision. i don't think that -- i don't think that's the right answer to this political solution as needed. but i will tell you, yes, to get isis out -- you need the american military or the iraqi army. hopefully it's the iraqi army and not the american military. i don't think the american military should be the one to answer the call to solve the solution which is really a sectarian, religious issue going on right now in iraq.

because maliki has been such a failure and been a shia leader and not iraqi leader. >> msnbc contributor patrick murray. thanks for your time tonight. appreciate that. joining us now, richard engel live from tel aviv. of course reported from iraq for much of the last decade. richard, thanks for joining us tonight. i'm curious what your reaction is to what you heard the president say tonight. >> i think it's an indication of how serious the situation is in iraq, how the isis problem continues to grow. i was in baghdad just a few months ago. i'm here because i was covering the war in gaza between hamas and israel. but before this, i was watching this march as isis was driving toward baghdad, and isis militants first took over mosul, second largest city in the country.

they captured many weapons, u.s. donated weapons that were given to the iraqi military. the u.s. ultimate intervened. because of that, and because of the rise of the shiite population there, terrified that baghdad would come under assault, isis never got to baghdad. but they didn't stop fighting. instead, they moved back to their strong hold in the north around mosul and they spread out to the east and west. and they moved toward the kurdish city and toward sinjar, where they drove a lot of the eth minority, especially the yazidi people, they accused them of being devil worshippers. and isis accuses them of being devil worshippers because they have a very ancient religion that isis doesn't respect or understand. wants to eliminate. and drove about 40,000 people up

on to a barren mountain with no water, no food, no chance of survival. now the president, after first saying we're going to send military advisers has approved these two limited missions to try and get humanitarian supplies to the people on the mountain and to try and break the blockade around them to try and destroy the isis positions if necessary, if they present a threat that are around the mountain keeping the people pinned in. and to try to protect the city of erbil where the city has advisers. the question is, what will happen when there is the next crisis in what will happen when there is another group of people forced into a valley or up another mountain? i think we're seeing the extent of the problem but also the absolute inability of the iraqi security forces to deal with it. >> the other question it raises to me, richard, and i'm curious based on what you know of isis, what their reaction will be to what the president is saying?

the president is saying you're 40 miles away from erbil. don't go any farther. i've authorized air strikes. and you've got these tens of thousands of people on the mountains. don't lay a glove on them or i aught rise air strikes. how do you think isis responds to that? >> this is a group that is not going to be deterred by threats. they were deterred only when confronted with a superior force. only did they slow their advance toward baghdad when troops were put there, iraqi troops in this case and shiite militia troops were put there. i don't think they're going to be intimidated by these threats. perhaps they won't consider driving toward erbil. i don't think they would have had a chance of taking the city any way. it's a very strong firmly held kurdish city. it's held by the kurdish peshmerga. it's one of the capitals of the region. they would have had a tough fight getting into kurdistan any

way, but they could have gotten close to the city and started lobbing artillery into it. i think the u.s. has drawn a line in the sand saying we will stand with erbil. we will help our kurdish friends. by the way, the kurds in iraq were always the closest allies to american forces. they were the u.s. best friend in iraq. so not to vow to protecting them would have been a tremendous betrayal from the u.s. government after the kurds were so loyal for so many years to u.s. troops. >> and you also -- you mentioned earlier sort of the failures of the iraqi military. again, the president, as part of the case he was making to the nation tonight, he was saying this was a request that was made specifically to him by the iraqi government. we were talking about this on the show earlier, this idea is the united states, with doing the humanitarian drops and basically warning isis away from this mountain or trying to warn isis away from this mountain, is the u.s. trying to buy a little time and a little bit of space

for the iraqi government, the iraqi military to go in and deal with the situation at the base of the mountain? do you think that's something plausible any time in the near future? >> i think this was more of an act of desperation than even that. i don't think the iraqi military has the logistical capability to get anywhere close to this mountain. we've been told that iraqi generals called for baghdad for supplies. gasoline, more vehicles, air support in particular, and those supplies simply are not coming. the u.s. would not be intervening here because the president knows the allergy that most people in the united states have to involvement of any kind in iraq. unless there was a complete inability for the iraqi forces to do it. >> all right. nbc news chief foreign correspondent, richard engel live from tel aviv. we appreciate that. i want to bring in steve clemens. steve, we had you on right

before the president spoke. you've heard the discussion here. i'm just curious, your thoughts on it? >> i think the president, the key word is genocide. which you mentioned earlier. he has people like susan rice and samantha power in his administration. they don't want to have a moment in this administration that was like bill clinton in rwanda. i think when you mention genocide, it depends action on the humanitarian front. now he has to be careful not to have this expand. it is interesting that vice president biden's office just put out a readout of his talk with kurdish president barzani, and he says very specifically that the united states will do whatever it takes to protect our interests in erbil, including airstrikes, which begs the question of what more beyond air strikes. that's just an interesting sentence and a readout. it's like kremlinology, but these read outs are important. >> that's the first thing i thought of as well. if you're drawing that line and if you make another move toward erbil, we're going to try to drop you with air strikes and

the air strikes don't get it done, what then? >> there have been various times when the white house in calls with some of us have said in various cases, not with erbil, but with baghdad, that we would take whatever measures are necessary, far beyond what we were talking. and they would be nonspecific about that, that there would be key lines take us into an order magnitude difference sort of beyond drones, beyond cruise mills. we've also seen a creep-up of advisers that have gone to iraq. it's hard to imagine if we begin bombing that you won't see those numbers creep up. the president showed real discipline in libya of not growing the foot print of military action. and as we heard from him tonight, he doesn't want to go down that road. but it's very, very hard in these kinds of situations. and essentially, isil is operating across the borders of three or four countries right now. jordan, lebanon, syria, and iraq. and now moving beyond others. and we're talking about this as

an isil story. it's really a sunni story. this is the manifestation of a sunni-shia war in the region. we need to begin thinking about what the stakeholders are there. this is beyond maliki. we need to look at how to bring the saudis, the iranians, the turks and other stake holders into a very different kind of strategic social contract in that region. that's where the action needs to go. >> it's also a situation where you've had isis taking over these sunni areas. a sunni movement take over sunni areas. now when you start talking about erbil, you start talking about kurdish territory. you're talking about a possible incursion into another group's territory. that's when we reached a significant moment and that's what the president seems interested in stopping. >> it may be time for an independent kurdish nation. we've got three million kurds in syria. you have many kurds in turkey. that continues to sort of blur

the lines. it furthers the notion of ethnically clean states. if you're ethnically cleansed states. when you begin looking at that kind of ethnonationalalism in this region, it can be incredibly toxic and destabling for all of the countries in that area. >> and steve, we've been talking about this a little bit too. do you have any sense about the timetable? we know the president said if isis makes a further move towards erbil, that would warrant air strikes. the other question, these people trapped on the mountain. that seems more open ended in terms of when the president might say okay, now the situation warrants some sort of military strikes, some sort of air strike here. do you have any sense of where that line would be? if isis is not activity going into mountains and trying to kill them, but is not letting them come down, not letting them return to their town do, you have any sense when at that point the president would say okay now we have to take some kind of air strike? >> i think we've animated every personnel we have to get iraq capacity devoted to doing

something here. we're going to be the puppet masters driving the iraqis to be responsible for these people, moving them forward with various forms of intelligence. so we'll be engaged, but we'll be a step behind. but that's the only way they can move expeditiously to bring relief to those people under siege >> steve clemens, thanks for being with us. really appreciate the incite. that does it for us tonight. msnbc's continuing coverage of this crisis in iraq continues now with "the last word with lawrence o'donnell." lawrence, good evening. >> thanks, steve. our msnbc breaking news coverage of the situation in iraq continues. president obama confirmed a short time ago that he ordered a humanitarian mission in iraq today, and that it has been carried out, escorted by f-18 fighter jets, u.s. military cargo planes have successfully dropped food, water, and medicine in the sinjar mountain area where thousands have fled

and are now trapped by the islamic state of iraq and syria militants. a small religious kurdish sect fled after isis threatened to execute anyone who didn't convert. to islam. isis blocked the roads. as many as 25,000 children now have no access to food or water. at least 40 have died so far from dehydration. and the extreme heat. president obama met with his national security team in the situation room earlier today and spoke just moments ago. >> today i authorized two operations in iraq. targeted air strikes to protect our american personnel, and a humanitarian effort to save thousands of iraqi civilians who are trapped on a mountain without food and water and facing almost certain death. let me explain the actions we're taking and why. first, i said in june, as the terrorist group isis began