Syria: How Long Should We Wait?; Interview With Reps. Marsha Blackburn And Steve Israel
ANNOUNCER: Tonight on CROSSFIRE, is Obama losing the Syria fight at home but winning on the world stage?</s>BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We've seen some encouraging signs. In part because of the credible threat of U.S. military action.</s>ANNOUNCER: Should Congress force a deadline or keep waiting for the Russians? On the left, Stephanie Cutter. On the right, Newt Gingrich. In the CROSSFIRE, Steve Israel, who supports the president's solutions in Syria, and Marsha Blackburn, who's opposed. Syria, how long should we wait? Tonight on</s>CROSSFIRE. NEWT GINGRICH, CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE. I'm Newt Gingrich on the right.</s>STEPHANIE CUTTER, CO-HOST: And I'm Stephanie Cutter on the left. Later tonight, Secretary of State John Kerry takes off for negotiations with the Russians on eliminating chemical weapons in Syria. Now let's review what's happened in just the last 48 hours. As a result of President Obama's threat of military force, Assad finally admitted Syria has chemical weapons. Syria offered to sign a treaty that it's resisted for decades, and Russia finally got involved in the peace process after obstructing us for two years. Now Newt, sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade. This is progress. The president's use of force worked and you should admit that. I know you're a critic, but you should admit...</s>GINGRICH: Or -- or this is a very clever maneuver by Putin to guarantee that Assad survives. Time will tell which of those two versions is accurate. But at the moment we have two members of the House in the CROSSFIRE tonight. New York Democrat Steve Israel supports President Obama's Syria plan. Tennessee Republican Marsha Blackburn is against it. We're delighted that both of you are here. Let me start with you, Congressman Israel. How much do you trust the Russians to take the leadership in finding a path when it's their ally who's in the middle of this?</s>REP. STEVE ISRAEL (D), NEW YORK: You will be happy to know, Newt, that I agree with Ronald Reagan's assessment: trust but verify. And we need to spend the next several days verifying. That's exactly what's happening. Secretary Kerry is en route to Geneva to meet with Lavrov. They need to put this in a pressure cooker. And if it withstands pressure, then we should take it. You know, it is actually in Putin's interest. I believe he's calculated that it is in his interest to do a deal. We have to ascertain whether it's in our interest to do this deal.</s>GINGRICH: Here's my question, when you look at David Kay and other United Nations inspectors, they say that this is virtually impossible to do. You have huge amount of chemical weapons scattered around the country in the middle of a civil war. And the process of trying to go in there and taking care of those would be enormously complex. Doesn't it worry you that it may well be just -- it's an interesting ploy but that, in reality, the complexity of doing it is going to make it very hard?</s>ISRAEL: We won't know whether it's a ploy or a play, whether it's real or not until we vet it out. And that's our responsibility right now. We've got a couple of benchmarks. One is what happens in Geneva. And the second is that the U.N. will produce its report sometime next week, and Congress will take a look at that report. Those two benchmarks give us a time frame for assessing whether we should proceed through a diplomatic route or through other means. I'm hoping more than I've ever hoped in public policy that diplomacy works. But if it doesn't, I believe we have an obligation for our own security not to enable and empower regimes to use chemical weapons against us or their own people.</s>CUTTER: And Newt, the -- David Kay and others didn't say this was impossible. They said it was difficult. But the United States does difficult things. So now we have to try to work this out. I think the president has done an excellent job of bringing an ally who's not been very much of an ally...</s>GINGRICH: Bringing an ally.</s>CUTTER: ... to the table to help us figure out a process. And Russia has blocked us every step of the way. Now they're coming to the table.</s>GINGRICH: So this was all a clever design...</s>CUTTER: Well, it's been our ultimate goal altogether to have a negotiated process. This is -- use of force was a last resort. Over the last two years, the president is working through a political process to topple Assad and prevent him from doing exactly what he's done, gassing his own people.</s>GINGRICH: It's not going to stop.</s>CUTTER: Absolutely.</s>GINGRICH: My question to Steve was that there's a pretty fair chance that this actually is going to solidify Assad, because in order to get to the weapons, you have to be able to have safety. In order to have safety...</s>CUTTER: Right.</s>GINGRICH: ... you're going to be reinforcing Assad's regime.</s>CUTTER: Actually, I think that the only way this would work is if you call a cease-fire. And a cease-fire means that the Syrian people are no longer getting killed by Assad. And the president's plan can continue to work. Now, Congresswoman Blackburn, I have a question for you. You've been very much a critic of the president. You've been against the targeted strike. You've been critical of the president's plan. I'm not sure what your plan is. Could you outline your plan for me of what you would do to get rid of Assad?</s>REP. MARSHA BLACKBURN (R), TENNESSEE: Yes. I think that there are several things that do need to be done. No. 1, Russia needs -- this is an opportunity for them to prove that they are an honest broker. And we don't know that yet. So this is an opportunity for them to step up and to say, "You know, we're going to be an honest broker in this." The second thing is one of the things we hear from people is where is the U.N.? And what is the U.N. going to do through this process? What are they willing -- why is the international community not a part of this? So those are items that need to happen. But another thing that I hear from my constituents, who have been very much opposed to this -- and by the way, I have a major military post in my district. I have a lot of military retirees. They are very frustrated that the president has not been able to clearly define the situation, define a strategy, define an execution and he is not talking about Iran.</s>CUTTER: Right. Well, he is talking about Iran. And let me just -- to that point about not defining a strategy. Obviously, we heard him define a strategy last night about deterring and degrading Assad from using chemical weapons, and there's an opportunity there clearly for Russia. But he has outlined a plan for stabilizing the region and toppling Assad. And he's been actually exercising it for the last two years. A billion dollars in humanitarian aid. Working through a political system so that the world is coming together, isolating Assad and ridding him of power. Crippling sanctions and supplying weapons to the vetted opposition, the moderate opposition so that they can fight Assad's forces on the ground...</s>BLACKBURN: Stephanie, he still...</s>CUTTER: That's the plan. What in there would you do differently?</s>BLACKBURN: He still wavers. He still wavers between having a military or a political solution.</s>CUTTER: Why can't you do both?</s>ISRAEL: I'm sorry. I disagree with you.</s>BLACKBURN: Yes, he is. Yes, he is.</s>ISRAEL: He said he's going too far too fast, and he should do something other than military.</s>BLACKBURN: And there are members of your caucus...</s>ISRAEL: Correct.</s>BLACKBURN: ... doing the same thing.</s>ISRAEL: Correct. And now there is the potential to satisfy them, those in your caucus and my caucus who don't support a military strike. Now you're criticizing him for trying to satisfy that possibility. Look, I think we've got to keep reasonably all the options on the table and make decisions based on what is in our best interests. And remember what the strategic objective is, my final point on this. The strategic objective has always been to deter and degrade the Syrian regime's chemical weapons capability. Not just to protect the citizens -- citizens of Syria but because of Iran, because we don't want to send a message to Iran that when you use weapons of mass destruction our policy is, don't worry...</s>BLACKBURN: Steve, deter and degrade...</s>ISRAEL: You should worry. Because of troops...</s>BLACKBURN: ... change the momentum on the battlefield. You know, are we or are we not going to get rid of Assad? When you talk to those in the region, you talk about the humanitarian aid there, but talk to some of those in Kurdistan, Stephanie. They've not been able to get any help.</s>CUTTER: Right. So what I don't understand, Congresswoman, is what you would do specifically that's different from the president. It's a very difficult situation. Specifically what would you do differently? How would you get the humanitarian aid to those people faster in the middle of a civil war? How would you do that?</s>BLACKBURN: Yes. And beginning to work with our allies, working with Jordan and Turkey and Kurdistan.</s>CUTTER: Which the president is doing.</s>BLACKBURN: Kurdistan, you can go talk to the individuals up there. No. Baghdad has not made certain that those in Kurdistan have the supplies that they need. They are flooded -- they are flooded with refugees.</s>GINGRICH: Let me just make a point here that sort of reinforces how complicated this is. If it's hard to get aid to refugees, imagine how hard it's going to be for U.N. inspectors to get to chemical sites in the middle of a civil war. And the question I have for you, Steve, is if you're faced with this choice -- and, yes, we can get rid of the chemicals but in a process that actually keeps Assad in power. I think this is Putin's goal. Are you comfortable living with an outcome? Because a cease-fire ultimately would allow the regime to reorganize and restructure, and the rebels would lose. Are you comfortable that that is a better -- an outcome better than we were going towards in terms of degrading? Clearly the people who wanted more stuff were trying to get to degrade and get rid of Assad.</s>ISRAEL: Let me tell you where we were headed and why I'm comfortable with a strategic objective of deterring and degrading the use of chemical weapons. We were headed to an amplified use of chemical weapons, a more unstable Syria, the possibility that Nusra could access those chemical weapons, once Assad drew them out, empowering Iran, empowering North Korea, empowering Hezbollah. That is the worst scenario for our own national security. And so incrementally, I think we've got to start with, stop the chemical weapons capability from expanding and then go to other options. But the strategic objective is stop the chemical weapons capability from expanding.</s>GINGRICH: So -- and that is what the president said last night. Along that line -- along that line, if the Russians and the Americans and the Syrians agree, the United Nations will agree. At that point, would you be comfortable if American troops are back to boots on the ground? If American troops were part of the force that protected the inspectors?</s>ISRAEL: We are not even close to that. Look, I want to see the "I's" dotted and the "T's" crossed on this. We don't know how many facilities they have. You're asking me to do the House closing before I've even sold the House. I want to know exactly what the capability is -- that's all part of...</s>CUTTER: There's a bigger question here. If we are able to get a deal that is satisfactory to us, that protects our security interests with Russia, that it goes back to the Security Council, my question to you, Congresswoman, is if the resolution passes the Security Council, requiring Syria to turn over its chemical weapons, backed up by use of force, would you support a use of force resolution in the Congress?</s>BLACKBURN: We'll wait and see what -- what they come forward with.</s>CUTTER: But doesn't that satisfy your requirements?</s>BLACKBURN: Well, not totally. And I think there's more to this. Where do they get those weapons and then have they moved some of those out of the country? There are a lot of...</s>CUTTER: Lots of questions. Assuming all those get answer...</s>BLACKBURN: You're making a lot of -- you're making a lot of assumptions on that.</s>CUTTER: So are you.</s>BLACKBURN: Also, well...</s>CUTTER: You're making a lot of assumptions that it's not going to work.</s>GINGRICH: I'm really confused now. If you got an agreement in the U.N. Security Council, why do you need to pass a resolution...</s>CUTTER: It needs to be backed up by force. And the force by the United States is a big part of that.</s>GINGRICH: It's a remarkable reversal of roles. So you want to be able to use force even if the Syrians basically surrender?</s>CUTTER: No. Newt, do you think that the Syrians are going to -- do you think the Syrians are going to surrender their chemical weapons?</s>GINGRICH: I'm with</s>CUTTER: Easily, if it's backed up -- if it's not backed up --</s>GINGRICH: If Putin...</s>CUTTER: I don't think we should be that naive.</s>GINGRICH: If Putin says to them privately, you have to do this or we will abandon you.</s>CUTTER: OK. So you think...</s>GINGRICH: I think Assad has a big problem.</s>CUTTER: ... that we should agree to something without use of force on the table? You think we should agree to something without use of force on the table?</s>GINGRICH: I think if they surrender, you're allowed to say yes. You don't have...</s>CUTTER: Where's the "trust but verify"? That's a lot of trust in Putin.</s>ISRAEL: I don't know if that's good or bad for me. That assessment.</s>GINGRICH: If it's not verifiable, maybe you have to do something else.</s>CUTTER: That's very true.</s>GINGRICH: So next, we'll ask our guests if this U.S. senator is right.</s>SEN. BOB CORKER (R), TENNESSEE: The president just seems to be very uncomfortable being commander in chief of this nation.