Susan Rice on arming Syrian rebels, keeping U.S. combat forces out of the fight against Islamic State

Read the Full Transcript

• GWEN IFILL:

  The president's plan to go to war against Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria dominated much of the debate in Washington and in that region today.

  We begin ours with National Security Advisor Susan Rice. I talked to her from the White House a short time ago.

  Susan Rice, thank you for joining us.

  I want to start by asking you whether the mission the president described last night has any geographic limits.

• SUSAN RICE, National Security Advisor:

  Well, you heard the president say, Gwen, that anybody who seeks to attack the United States anywhere in the world will find no safe haven.

  Now, this is a fight against ISIL, a terrorist organization that's most active in Syria and Iraq. And the president made clear that we have a comprehensive strategy to take the fight to ISIL and to roll them back through degrading them and ultimately destroying them in Iraq and to the extent necessary in Syria.

  The president made clear that he wouldn't hesitate to act in Syria if necessary to roll back ISIL. And given the safe haven there, it is in all likelihood necessary.

• GWEN IFILL:

  As part of the president's four-part strategy that he outlined last night, he talked about arming the Free Syrian Army, the moderates who we had declined to support or arm before. What's different now?

• SUSAN RICE:

  Well, in fact, Gwen, the United States has been providing a degree of military support to the moderate opposition for almost two years now.

  Back in June, the president asked Congress for $500 million as part of a broader regional counterterrorism partnership fund to provide direct lethal support and training to the moderate Syrian opposition. Now that we are also in the context of having to deal with ISIL and degrade and destroy them, it's critically important that, to do that in Syria, we have a partner on the ground.

  In Iraq, we do have a partner on the ground. And, in fact, the president was very deliberate about waiting until a new Iraqi government was formed that was inclusive and can represent the interests of all of Iraq. Now we have the capacity and the ability to work with the Iraqi security forces and the Kurds in Iraq as our partner on the ground.

  The analog in Syria requires that there be a ground force that we can work with. The Free Syrian Army is the best option that we have, in that it is moderate. It is fighting ISIL. It is also facing the fight from Assad. It's been a partner to the United States. We have experience working with them, and we want to continue that.

• GWEN IFILL:

  You mentioned Assad. Is there any concern at the White House that in — by basically allying yourself with him and with Iran and with Hezbollah against ISIL, that you are aiding your own enemy?

• SUSAN RICE:

  Gwen, we're not aiding the enemy, nor are we allying ourselves with Syria, the Assad regime, Iran, or any other partner.

  We may have a common enemy in the fight against ISIL. And I think we should be candid about recognizing that ISIL has no state support, threatens all the states in the region, and threatens people, including Americans in the region, and threatens Europeans and has issued threats against the United States of America. So we have a common enemy, but that doesn't mean we are allied or coordinating or working together in any deliberate way. In fact, we're not.

• GWEN IFILL:

  If this is worth doing, why isn't it worth putting boots on the ground, combat forces on the ground in Syria or Iraq?

• SUSAN RICE:

  Because, Gwen, I think we have learned that that can be counterproductive. And at the end of the day, even after 10 years of combat in Iraq, where our men and women served with great bravery and suffered enormous losses and sacrifices, if you don't have a government that is prepared to sustain those gains through the right policies that are inclusive and representative of all the people, but also through maintaining a military capacity, those gains can be quickly diminished.

  So, in this instance, rather than replicate that experience, which was very costly, the preferred method is to build up the Iraqi capacity, both the political capacity, as well as the military capacity, to take this fight to ISIL and sustain it. It is the Iraqis themselves, and, indeed, it will ultimately be the Syrians themselves that have to control their own territory and have the push out this threat, this cancer that is threatening them most proximately.

• GWEN IFILL:

  What if Congress will not approve the funding that the president has requested, in spite of some positive-sounding signs from Capitol Hill today?

• SUSAN RICE:

  Well, certainly, we're hopeful that Congress will recognize the necessity.

  It's part of a comprehensive strategy of enabling the United States to provide training and support to a moderate opposition in Syria. Without that, the United States doesn't have a partner on the ground. And I think most members of Congress agree that it's not preferable to put American boots on the ground in this region again in a combat role, and, therefore, we need to have a viable partner that over time can join in this fight against ISIL.

  So I think when members of Congress weigh the alternatives and understand that to accomplish the mission, we need a partner on the ground, I think they will see that the best alternative in that regard is, in fact, the moderate opposition.

• GWEN IFILL:

  White House National Security Advisor Susan Rice, thank you.

• SUSAN RICE:

  Thank you, Gwen.