CNN "The Situation Room" - Transcript: Islamic State
Interview
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
BLITZER: Let's get back to our top story. President Obama just briefed the top Congressional leadership on a strategy to defeat ISIS. He will unveil his plan tomorrow night in a nationwide address, 9 p.m. Eastern. Joining us now, Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the senior Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senator, thanks very much for joining us.
SEN. BOB CORKER (R-TN), SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE: Good to be with you. Thank you.
BLITZER: The way I see it, the president will outline his strategy. Then it will be up to the Senate and House to either do nothing, just keep on talking, vote a formal resolution of approval authorizing the use of force against ISIS targets not only in Iraq but in Syria, or simply wait on funding because the president -- the administration will need a lot of money to begin this new phase of the war against ISIS and the war on terror. What's your preference?
CORKER: Well, obviously, I think the president should come to Congress and ask for the authorization for the use of force. Bush 41 in Desert Storm felt like he had the authority, but they realized that to get the U.S. buy-in, to get Congress's buy-in was very important.
Bush 43 did so in '01 in Afghanistan, did so in '02 in Iraq, and this president came to us with Syria last year, again seeking buy-in from the American people.
So I think it would be extremely lacking in judgment for him to not come seek that from us, a formal authorization. I don't think that he's going to ask for that, and I'm dismayed by that, because when you begin these kinds of efforts, things go wrong.
You know, you want to know that you have the support of Congress. Wolf, we don't have a lot of credibility in the region, because our allies in the Syrian conflict had to watch on CNN the president say that he wasn't going to strike, he was going to go to Congress.
And then, as you know, what we did with Russia and Assad ended up delivering a great setback to us and certainly the efforts of the moderate rebels. So I think to have Congress's buy-in to them would show strength, would show credibility, would show a durable effort. So I'm dismayed by the fact that, at present, they're not seeking that authorization.
BLITZER: But just to get back to that one point, the president would point out, his aides would point out that that effort, the diplomatic effort with Russia and others to eliminate, destroy Syria's chemical weapons stockpile, that effort worked, right?
CORKER: No. Well, sure it worked if that was the goal. There were 1,200 people that were killed by chemical weapons of -- and I hate to say this, it's very crass, I mean, the smartest thing Assad ever did. And we never delivered aid and the lethal aid and training at the levels that we said we would to rebels. Assad is still in office. We jumped in Putin's lap. We've elevated him.
So certainly we got rid of the chemical weapons we know about. We believe there are those that haven't been disclosed yet. But it's been a loser for us in Syria. It's the big -- one of the biggest issues that's caused Iraq to go through the destabilization they've gone through.
So now we have two countries that are joined. It was a terrible policy to do what we did it and to ignore supporting at a time when it would have mattered, the moderate opposition.
So, look, it's the lack of policies that our nation has had in Iraq, leaving in '11 without leaving forces there, not to combat, but just a stabilizing force. And it was our lack of policy in Syria that's driven us to this place.
But we need to focus on the future.
BLITZER: Well...
CORKER: And, again, I'm dismayed that this president would not come to Congress and seek the authorization. I think you can debate whether he has the authority. Most people in the White House would say they do, as most presidents do.
But that's not the debate. The debate is, are you going to involve Congress?
Are you going to ask for their authorization in advance so that he knows he has support for the longer term?
BLITZER: Well, you could introduce, Senator, a resolution on your own, saying here is an appropriate -- the authority for the president to go ahead and strike.
CORKER: Yes.
BLITZER: In other words, members of the House, members of the Senate, they could take the initiative even if the president doesn't do that.
CORKER: Yes, but the part of the process that's important here, Wolf, is when you seek the support of Congress, you also come up here and explain in detail what your strategy is, what your objectives are. You have members of your cabinet up here explaining how you're going to go about it.
One of the things that I've not heard yet is any coherency to how we deal with Syria. And, obviously, in Iraq, we have the ability to build off the Iraqi military, as weak as it is. We have the ability to build off the Peshmerga with the Kurds. There are Shia militia groups there.
So we have things in place there that you can build off of on the ground.
We don't have that in Syria. And I haven't heard anyone yet, from the administration, explain how we're going to deal with that.
But think about it: we have to go into Syria. So we'd be going into another country that we're now -- have been totally uninvolved in -- uninvolved in relative to military efforts. And going into another country, the president is talking about a potential three year effort and not seeking an authorization.
I just think it's incredibly poor judgment. And, again, no effort whatsoever to sell Congress, to sell the American people.
I think most people here want to deal with ISIS in a strong manner that exterminates them. But I think not seeking that approval on the front end...
BLITZER: All right...
CORKER: ... is extremely lacking in judgment.
BLITZER: Very quickly on this sensitive issue, looking ahead, you say the U.S. should be providing weapons to the moderate Syrian rebels.
CORKER: Yes.
BLITZER: Here's the fear, that those weapons could wind up in the hands of al-Nusra or even ISIS, other terrorist groups...
CORKER: Yes. Yes.
BLITZER: ... given how strong they are and how weak that Free Syrian Army is.
CORKER: Yes. So, look, I've advocated that a year and a half ago. We had a strong bipartisan vote in our committee to do that. It never has happened. And I like...
BLITZER: Is it too late, though?
CORKER: I like -- I -- I question whether it's too late. I mean he's talking about $500 million in support. I don't know what's left of the moderate opposition. The vacuum that we helped create there, with our policies, have now caused them to be a minim -- a de minimis factor. And so I do question that. And I want someone from the administration to explain to me that that is still a viable strategy, because, like you, I've got concerns.
We left them hanging. We've gotten to where we know or recognize people in these refugee camps that we left hanging, America. We told them what we were going to do. We didn't do it. Their sons, their uncles, their brothers have been slaughtered.
And I do question whether there's much there that matters of the moderate opposition. That's a factor that I think we should though about and they should be discussing with us. But it's not occurred yet.
BLITZER: Yes. Because we know a lot of the weapons that ISIS has in Iraq are U.S. weapons, which they took when the Iraqi military abandoned their posts, simply ran away and ISIS got U.S. tanks, armored personnel carriers, surface-to-air missiles, all sorts of other good military equipment.
It's a complex question, a complex problem.
CORKER: It is.
BLITZER: We'll hear what the president says tomorrow night.
Senator Corker, we'll check in -- check back with you after we hear from the president.
Thanks very much for joining us.
CORKER: Thank you, Wolf.
Coming up in our special report, we have new details about the latest U.S. air strikes in Iraq. Has the U.S. also targeted the top leadership of ISIS for assassination.
And later, why air strikes against ISIS targets in Syria present more of a challenge than they do in Iraq.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source