Is Obama right to rule out U.S. ground combat against Islamic State?

Read the Full Transcript

• GWEN IFILL:

  So, one central question being asked of President Obama's plan to combat the Islamic State group, can the U.S. rely on the Iraqi military and moderate rebels in Syria or will U.S. ground troops eventually be needed to destroy the militants?

  We get two views.

  Retired Colonel Derek Harvey was an intelligence officer and special adviser to the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, General David Petraeus. He's now director for the Global Initiative on Civil Society and Conflict at University of South Florida. And Janine Davidson was an Air Force pilot during the 1990s and was deputy assistant secretary of defense for plans during the first term of the Obama administration. She's now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

  Colonel Harvey, the president doubled down today on this effort to keep us out of a ground war. Was he right?

  COL. DEREK HARVEY (RET.), Former Army intelligence officer: Well, I think we have the pay attention to what he said, and he has clear red lines.

  And clearly he doesn't want combat troops on the ground. But it doesn't mean we're not going to have other capabilities on the ground that will be providing that support to the Iraqi security forces and to others eventually.

• GWEN IFILL:

  Janine Davidson, what do you think? Was he right to make — to draw that line so brightly?

  JANINE DAVIDSON, Former Defense Department official: Well, I think that policy is a little bit different than a plan, and so I do think that he is right to say that we don't need ground forces right now, American ground forces, but, then again, you know, General Dempsey did say, you know, I'm holding this idea in reserve.

  But that's sort of the role of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is to offer options to the president when he may or may not need them at a later time. So, I think, for now, we should see how this goes.

• GWEN IFILL:

  Derek Harvey, we did hear General Dempsey say, if this happens and that happens and this happens, then I would go back perhaps to the president to ask for a more robust presence of U.S. troops on the ground.

  Do you think that the general is basically laying the groundwork for the potential that this could be a slippery slope, or is he just speaking general-speak?

• COL. DEREK HARVEY:

  I think he's speaking general speak.

  I believe that the administration has a comprehensive approach that will take time, and they're looking at the long view. They're going to go after the financial networks, the foreign fighter flow both into those countries, as well as out. They're going to try to delegitimize the Islamic State's brand of Islam.

  And they're going to do other things, like build, train and equip the Iraqi security forces and build up other capabilities in the region. So they're taking a long view. We have to take the president's speech at its word. He wants to model it after the Yemen and Somali campaigns, and not have U.S. troops on the ground.

• GWEN IFILL:

  Well, let me ask you this, Janine Davidson. Is it possible not to have troops on the ground, or is it just someone else's troops we want on the ground?

• JANINE DAVIDSON:

  I think it is possible not to have American ground troops.

  And, in fact — and I also think that it might actually be the right approach to not put American troops on the ground, not because we don't want skin in the game, but because it actually may be more effective. We have to draw a pretty tight line here between doing what we can to destroy ISIS — and American firepower is huge. I mean, sure, we could go in there with everything we have and do some real damage.

  But on the other hand, the bigger we go in, the more likely we are to draw a blowback and also get a lot more anti-American sentiment. And so it's a real delicate line to have, you know, whether we — where we can do some damage to ISIL without generating so much anti-American sentiment that we continue this cycle on and on and on.

  And I think the administration gets that. And that's probably what they're struggling with.

• GWEN IFILL:

  Derek Harvey, I wonder sometimes, as we're arguing something, an arcane distinction without a difference, which is to say there are already Americans who — they may not be wearing boots, or maybe, whatever, but they're already on the ground. They're just called advisers.

  Is there a distinction to be drawn there?

• COL. DEREK HARVEY:

  The distinction is those that are going to be in direct combat, closing in close combat with the enemy, and that is not what the president's going to put on the ground.

  But I do believe that the president and the administration need to think seriously about significantly expanding the ground presence in terms of advisers, trainers and the capabilities to support engagement with the Sunni Arab communities, to build the national guard structure there and to build a confidence-based system and an interlocking system where we can engage and support the political process going forward.

  And that does come with a significant military presence of the right kinds of capabilities.

• GWEN IFILL:

  When you say significant, can you put a number on that?

• COL. DEREK HARVEY:

  I would say 6,000 to 8,000 in a combined joint task force, but not directed at a ground combat role.

• GWEN IFILL:

  Janine Davidson, when the president invoked the examples of Somalia and Yemen, are they reasonable comparisons to what we're going through now?

• JANINE DAVIDSON:

  Well, it depends on what he means by that. If he's talking about the way in which we coordinate with local actors to conduct these operations, then I think that's the right model.

  If he's talking about…

• GWEN IFILL:

  That's the ideal, obviously.

• JANINE DAVIDSON:

  Well, yes, but, I mean, the other part about the Yemen and the Somalia model is drone strikes that appear to sometimes be arbitrary or that are just aimed at taking out the senior leadership.

  And that could potentially backfire. And so I think we have to be very delicate, so working with local actors to — for them to take the fight to the enemy, as opposed to just trying to put warheads on foreheads, as the military says, across the region.

• GWEN IFILL:

  You know, Derek Harvey, we saw in today's debate on the House floor and also in the hearing with Secretary Kerry a lot of skepticism about whether those actors on the ground, actors from allies on the ground, will actually step up. What is your sense of that?

• COL. DEREK HARVEY:

  Well, that's the feedback that I'm hearing from my sources.

  And I think what we have to keep in mind is, there are a lot of pieces in play that make the president's strategy viable in Iraq. But I'm not sure that we understand what the endgame is in Syria or that we have the pieces in play to work with there, because we don't have a partner government, we don't have a partner military, we don't have a political program to offer there.

  So that's the big question mark. How do we square the Syrian piece of this two-state problem?

• GWEN IFILL:

  And, Janine Davidson — and I want to ask you this, too, Derek Harvey, in a moment, which is, the president said — and he said it again today — that part of the mission, the overall long-term mission is to destroy ISIS, ISIL, the Islamic State group. Is that word even achievable?

• JANINE DAVIDSON:

  Yes, I mean, I think words really matter here.

  I think that it's feasible to stop ISIL. I think it's feasible to degrade their ability to operate. But ending ISIL will take a long time. Defeating it or destroying it, it all depends on what you mean by that. I think that the roots of what has caused ISIL are going to continue until the leaders in the region come up with a political solution that accommodates all these various actors.

  Derek is absolutely right. Syria is a witch's brew of bad guys. I mean, it's nearly impossible to pick the right side. And what we have chosen to do is choose the least bad side for now to get the worst bad actors off the street. And then what?

  Well, we will sit and see — sit back and see who the next bad actor is and see if we can continue to work — to work that and nudge that. But the American role is not to do it all, because it's impossible for the — an outside American force to do what needs to be done politically over the long term in this region.

• GWEN IFILL:

  Derek Harvey, what do you think about the use of the term destroy?

• COL. DEREK HARVEY:

  It was an overreach by the president. It was inappropriate for this context.

  I agree with Janine very much that this has the capability to be neutralized, pushed back, rolled back. They were on the edges of being defeated when they found sanctuary in Syria. I think it's unfortunate the president used that term, because it raised expectations and it showed a gap between strategic aims and the resources that he's willing to put at the effort, and I think that's what caused this debate.

• GWEN IFILL:

  All right. Well, we will be watching to see where the debate goes from here.

  Derek Harvey of the University of South Florida, and Janine Davidson with the Council on Foreign Relations, thank you both very much.

• JANINE DAVIDSON:

  Thank you for having me.

• COL. DEREK HARVEY:

  Thank you, Gwen.