Reuters Insider - Obama sees no U.S. military action to solve Ukraine problem
29/08/2014 08:06
Click the following link to watch video:
http://insider.thomsonreuters.com/link.html?cn=share&cid=1291956&shareToken=MzpmNmJjNDZhNy01ZGEwLTQwODctYmM4NC0xNTQ3ZTQ4MWVlMjU%3D&playerName=ReutersNews
Source: Thomson Reuters
Description: President Obama makes a statement to reporters
ahead of a national security meeting on the
situation in Iraq and Syria and Ukraine.
(To access all exclusive Reuters Insider programming visit: http://insider.thomsonreuters.com)
Short Link: http://reut.rs/1rCM1kg
Transcript (May be auto-generated)
I want to say a few words on a number of topics and take a few questions before
the long Labor Day weekend. First, beginning with the number one thing that most
Americans care about- the economy. This morning, we found out that our economy
actually grew at a stronger clip in the 2nd quarter than we originally thought.
Companies are investing. Consumers are spending. Over the past four and a half
years, our businesses have now created nearly 10 million new jobs. So there are
reasons to feel good about the direction we're headed.
But as everybody knows, there's a lot more that we should be doing to make sure
that all Americans benefit from the progress that we've made. And I'm going to
be pushing Congress hard on this when they return next week. Second, in Iraq,
our dedicated pilots and crews continue to carry out the targeted strikes that I
authorized to protect Americans there and to address the humanitarian situation
on the ground. As Commander-in-Chief, I will always do what is necessary to
protect the American people and defend against evolving threats to our homeland.
Because of our strikes, the terrorists of ISIL are losing arms and equipment. In
some areas, Iraqi government and Kurdish forces have begun to push them back.
And we continue to be proud and grateful to our extraordinary personnel serving
in this mission. Now, ISIL poses an immediate threat to the people of Iraq and
to people throughout the region. And that's why our military action in Iraq has
to be part of a broader, comprehensive strategy to protect our people and to
support our partners who are taking the fight to ISIL. And that starts with
Iraq's leaders building on the progress that they've made so far and forming an
inclusive government that will unite their country and strengthen their security
forces to confront ISIL. Any successful strategy, though, also needs strong
regional partners. I'm encouraged so far that countries in the region, countries
that don't always agree on many things, increasingly recognize the primacy of
the threat that ISIL poses to all of them. And I've asked Secretary Kerry to
travel to the region to continue to build the coalition that's needed to meet
this threat. As I've said, rooting out a cancer like ISIL will not be quick or
easy, but I'm confident that we can and we will, working closely with our allies
and our partners. For our part, I've directed Secretary Hagel and our Joint
Chiefs of Staff to prepare a range of options. I'll be meeting with my National
Security Council again this evening as we continue to develop that strategy. And
I've been consulting with members of Congress and I'll continue to do so in the
days ahead. Finally, I just spoke with Chancellor Merkel of Germany on the
situation in Ukraine. We agree, if there was ever any doubt, that Russia is
responsible for the violence in eastern Ukraine. The violence is encouraged by
Russia. The separatists are trained by Russia. They are armed by Russia. They
are funded by Russia. Russia has deliberately and repeatedly violated the
sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. And the new images of Russian
forces inside Ukraine make that plain for the world to see. This comes as
Ukrainian forces are making progress against the separatists. As a result of the
actions Russia has already taken, and the major sanctions we've imposed with our
European and international partners, Russia is already more isolated than at any
time since the end of the Cold War. Capital is fleeing. Investors are
increasingly staying out. Its economy is in decline. And this ongoing Russian
incursion into Ukraine will only bring more costs and consequences for Russia.
Next week, I'll be in Europe to coordinate with our closest allies and partners.
In Estonia, I will reaffirm our unwavering commitment to the defense of our NATO
allies. At the NATO Summit in the United Kingdom, we'll focus on the additional
steps we can take to ensure the Alliance remains prepared for any challenge. Our
meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Commission will be another opportunity for our
alliance to continue our partnership with Ukraine. And I look forward to
reaffirming the unwavering commitment of the United States to Ukraine and its
people when I welcome President Poroshenko to the White House next month. So
with that, I'm going to take a few questions. And I'm going to start with
somebody who I guess is now a big cheese- he's moved on.
But I understand this is going to be his last chance to ask me a question in the
press room. So I want to congratulate Chuck Todd and give him first dibs. I'm
glad you said "in the press room." Let me start with Syria. The decision that
you have to make between- first of all, is it a "if" or "when" situation about
going after ISIL in Syria? Can you defeat ISIL or ISIS without going after them
in Syria? And then how do you prioritize? You have said that Assad has lost
legitimacy to lead. Defeating ISIS could help Assad keep power. Talk about how
you prioritize those two pieces of your foreign policy. Well, first of all, I
want to make sure everybody is clear on what we're doing now, because it is
limited.
Our focus right now is to protect American personnel on the ground in Iraq; to
protect our embassy, to protect our consulates, to make sure that critical
infrastructure that could adversely affect our personnel is protected. Where we
see an opportunity that allows us with very modest risk to help the humanitarian
situation there as we did in Sinjar Mountain, we will take those opportunities
after having consulted with Congress. But our core priority right now is just to
make sure that our folks are safe and to do an effective assessment of Iraqi and
Kurdish capabilities. As I said I think in the last press conference, in order
for us to be successful, we've got to have an Iraqi government that is unified
and inclusive. So we are continuing to push them to get that job done. As soon
as we have an Iraqi government in place, the likelihood of the Iraqi security
forces being more effective in taking the fight to ISIL significantly increases.
And the options that I'm asking for from the Joint Chiefs focuses primarily on
making sure that ISIL is not overrunning Iraq. What is true, though, is that the
violence that's been taking place in Syria has obviously given ISIL a safe haven
there in ungoverned spaces. And in order for us to degrade ISIL over the long
term, we're going to have to build a regional strategy. Now, we're not going to
do that alone. We're going to have to do that with other partners, and
particularly Sunni partners, because part of the goal here is to make sure that
Sunnis both in Syria and in Iraq feel as if they've got an investment in a
government that actually functions, a government that can protect them, a
government that makes sure that their families are safe from the barbaric acts
that we've seen in ISIL. And right now, those structures are not in place. And
that's why the issue with respect to Syria is not simply a military issue, it's
also a political issue. It's also an issue that involves all the Sunni states in
the region and Sunni leadership recognizing that this cancer that has developed
is one that they have to be just as invested in defeating as we are. And so to
cut to the chase in terms of what may be your specific concerns, Chuck, my
priority at this point is to make sure that the gains that ISIL made in Iraq are
rolled back, and that Iraq has the opportunity to govern itself effectively and
secure itself. But when we look at a broader strategy that is consistent with
what I said at West Point, that's consistent with what I said at the National
Defense College, clearly ISIL has come to represent the very worst elements in
the region that we have to deal with collectively. And that's going to be a
long-term project. It's going to require us to stabilize Syria in some fashion,
and stabilizing Syria in some fashion means that we've got to get moderate
Sunnis who are able to govern and offer a real alternative and competition to
what ISIL has been doing in some of these spaces. Now, the last point with
respect to Assad, it's not just my opinion- I think it would be international
opinion that Assad has lost legitimacy in terms of dropping barrel bombs on
innocent families and killing tens of thousands of people. And right now, what
we're seeing is the areas that ISIL is occupying are not controlled by Assad
anyway. And, frankly, Assad doesn't seem to have the capability or reach to get
into those areas. So I don't think this is a situation where we have to choose
between Assad or the kinds of people who carry on the incredible violence that
we've been seeing there. We will continue to support a moderate opposition
inside of Syria, in part because we have to give people inside of Syria a choice
other than ISIL or Assad. And I don't see any scenario in which Assad somehow is
able to bring peace and stability to a region that is majority Sunni and has not
so far shown any willingness to share power with them or in any kind of
significant way deal with the longstanding grievances that they have there. Do
you need Congress's approval to go into Syria? I have consulted with Congress
throughout this process. I am confident that as Commander-in-Chief I have the
authorities to engage in the acts that we are conducting currently. As our
strategy develops, we will continue to consult with Congress. And I do think
that it will be important for Congress to weigh in, or that our consultations
with Congress continue to develop so that the American people are part of the
debate. But I don't want to put the cart before the horse. We don't have a
strategy yet. I think what I've seen in some of the news reports suggests that
folks are getting a little further ahead of where we're at than we currently
are. And I think that's not just my assessment, but the assessment of our
military as well. We need to make sure that we've got clear plans, that we're
developing them. At that point, I will consult with Congress and make sure that
their voices are heard. But there's no point in me asking for action on the part
of Congress before I know exactly what it is that is going to be required for us
to get the job done. All right.
Colleen McCain Nelson. Thank you, Mr. President. There you go. Do you consider
today's escalation in Ukraine an invasion? And when you talk about additional
costs to Russia, are you ready at this point to impose broader economic
sanctions? Or are you considering other responses that go beyond sanctions? I
consider the actions that we've seen in the last week a continuation of what's
been taking place for months now. As I said in my opening statement, there is no
doubt that this is not a homegrown, indigenous uprising in eastern Ukraine. The
separatists are backed, trained, armed, financed by Russia. Throughout this
process, we've seen deep Russian involvement in everything that they've done. I
think in part because of the progress that you had seen by the Ukrainians around
Donetsk and Luhansk, Russia determined that it had to be a little more overt in
what it had already been doing. But it's not really a shift. What we have seen,
though, is that President Putin and Russia have repeatedly passed by potential
off-ramps to resolve this diplomatically. And so in our consultations with our
European allies and partners, my expectation is, is that we will take additional
steps primarily because we have not seen any meaningful action on the part of
Russia to actually try to resolve this in diplomatic fashion. And I think that
the sanctions that we've already applied have been effective. Our intelligence
shows that the Russians know they've been effective, even though it may not
appear on Russian television. And I think there are ways for us to deepen or
expand the scope of some of that work. But ultimately, I think what's important
to recognize is the degree to which Russian decision-making is isolating Russia.
They're doing this to themselves. And what I've been encouraged by is the degree
to which our European partners recognize even though they are bearing a cost in
implementing these sanctions, they understand that a broader principle is at
stake. And so I look forward to the consultations that we'll have when I see
them next week. Okay.
Zeke Miller. Thank you, Mr. President. There you go. Last year, you said that
you believe our democracy is stronger when the President acts with the support
of Congress. In response to Chuck's question you said you don't have a strategy
yet, but you'll reconsider that going forward. But why didn't you go to Congress
before this current round of strikes in Iraq? Do you not believe that that's the
case anymore, what you said last year? And throughout your career you've also
said that you raised concerns with the expansion of powers of the executive. Are
you concerned that your recent actions, unilaterally, had maybe have cut against
that? No. And here's why: It is not just part of my responsibility, but it is a
sacred duty for me as Commander-in-Chief to protect the American people. And
that requires me to act fast, based on information I receive, if an embassy of
ours or a consulate of ours is being threatened. The decisions I made were based
on very concrete assessments about the possibility that Erbil might be overrun
in the Kurdish region and that our consulate could be in danger. And I can't
afford to wait in order to make sure that those folks are protected. But
throughout this process, we've consulted closely with Congress, and the feedback
I've gotten from Congress is, is that we're doing the right thing. Now, as we go
forward, as I've described to Chuck and look at a broader regional strategy with
an international coalition and partners to systematically degrade ISIL's
capacity to engage in the terrible violence and disruptions that they've been
engaging in not just in Syria, not just in Iraq, but potentially elsewhere if we
don't nip this at the bud, then those consultations with Congress for something
that is longer term I think become more relevant. And it is my intention that
Congress has to have some buy-in as representatives of the American people. And,
by the way, the American people need to hear what that strategy is. But as I
said to Chuck, I don't want to put the cart before the horse. And in some of the
media reports the suggestion seems to have been that we're about to go full
scale on an elaborate strategy for defeating ISIL, and the suggestion, I guess,
has been that we'll start moving forward imminently and somehow Congress, still
out of town, is going to be left in the dark. That's not what's going to happen.
We are going to continue to focus on protecting the American people. We're going
to continue, where we can, to engage in the sort of humanitarian acts that saved
so many folks who were trapped on a mountain. We are going to work politically
and diplomatically with folks in the region. And we're going to cobble together
the kind of coalition that we need for a long-term strategy as soon as we are
able to fit together the military, political and economic components of that
strategy. There will be a military aspect to that, and it's going to be
important for Congress to know what that is, in part because it may cost some
money. Okay. I'll just take a couple more.
Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Do you regret not moving on ISIS earlier? There
are some reports indicating that most of the weapons, the U.S. weapons that they
have, they got it or they acquired it after the fall of Mosul. And also, the
Iraqi President said today that the Iraqi forces are in no position to stand up
to ISIS. What makes you think that forming a new government will change the
situation? Well, once ISIL got into Mosul that posed a big problem, because
there's no doubt that they were able to capture some weapons and resources that
they then used to finance additional operations. And at that stage, we
immediately contacted the Iraqi government. Keep in mind we had been in
communications with the Iraqi government for more than a year indicating that we
saw significant problems in the Sunni areas. Prime Minister Maliki was not as
responsive perhaps as we would have liked to some of the underlying political
grievances that existed at the time. There is no doubt that in order for Iraq
security forces to be successful, they're going to need help. They're going to
need help from us. They're going to need help from our international partners.
They're going to need additional training. They're going to need additional
equipment. And we are going to be prepared to offer that support. There may be a
role for an international coalition providing additional air support for their
operations. But the reason it's so important that an Iraqi government be in
place is this is not simply a military problem. The problem we have had
consistently is a Sunni population that feels alienated from Baghdad and does
not feel invested in what's happening, and does not feel as if anybody is
looking out for them. If we can get a government in place that provides Sunnis
some hope that a national government serves their interest, if they can regain
some confidence and trust that it will follow through on commitments that were
made way back in 2006 and 2007 and 2008 and earlier about how you arrive at, for
example, de-Baathification laws and give people opportunities so they're not
locked out of government positions; if those things are followed through on, and
we are able to combine it with a sound military strategy, then I think we can be
successful. If we can't, then the idea that the United States or any outside
power would perpetually defeat ISIS I think is unrealistic. As I've said before,
I think I said in the previous press conference, our military is the best in the
world. We can route ISIS on the ground and keep a lid on things temporarily. But
then as soon as we leave, the same problems come back again. So we've got to
make sure that Iraqis understand in the end they're going to be responsible for
their own security.
And part of that is going to be the capacity for them to make compromises. It
also means that states in the region stop being ambivalent about these extremist
groups. The truth is that we've had state actors who at times have thought that
the way to advance their interests is, well, financing some of these groups as
proxies is not such a bad strategy. And part of our message to the entire region
is this should be a wake-up call to Sunni, to Shia, to everybody that a group
like ISIS is beyond the pale; that they have no vision or ideology beyond
violence and chaos and the slaughter of innocent people. And as a consequence,
we've got to all join together even if we have differences on a range of
political issues to make sure that they're rooted out. Okay. Last question.
Mr. President, despite all of the actions the West has taken to get Russia to
pull back from Ukraine, Russia seems intent on taking one step after another -
convoys, transports of arms. At what point do sanctions no longer work? Would
you envisage the possibility of a necessity of military action to get Russia to
pull back from Ukraine? We are not taking military action to solve the Ukrainian
problem. What we're doing is to mobilize the international community to apply
pressure on Russia. But I think it is very important to recognize that a
military solution to this problem is not going to be forthcoming. Now, the fact
that Russia has taken these actions in violation of the sovereignty and
territorial integrity of the Ukrainians has resulted, I believe, in a weakening
of Russia, not a strengthening of Russia. That may not be apparent immediately,
but I think it will become increasingly apparent. What it's also done is
isolated Russia from its trading partners, its commercial partners,
international business in ways that I think are going to be very difficult to
recover from. And we will continue to stand firm with our allies and partners
that what is happening is wrong, that there is a solution that allows Ukraine
and Russia to live peacefully. But it is not in the cards for us to see a
military confrontation between Russia and the United States in this region. Keep
in mind, however, that I'm about to go to a NATO conference. Ukraine is not a
member of NATO, but a number of those states that are close by are. And we take
our Article 5 commitments to defend each other very seriously, and that includes
the smallest NATO member, as well as the largest NATO member. And so part of the
reason I think this NATO meeting is going to be so important is to refocus
attention on the critical function that NATO plays to make sure that every
country is contributing in order to deliver on the promise of our Article 5
assurances. Part of the reason I'll be going to Estonia is to let the Estonians
know that we mean what we say with respect to our treaty obligations. We don't
have those treaty obligations with Ukraine. We do, however, stand shoulder to
shoulder with them, and we're doing not just a lot of work diplomatically but
also financially in order to make sure that they have the best chance at dealing
with what is admittedly a very difficult situation. Thank you very much,
everybody. On immigration?
Thank you, guys. Thank you. Immigration? Mr. President, how are external events
and your executive decision-making going to impact your decision on immigration
reform? Some people say you're going to delay this. Let me just say this: I've
been very clear about the fact that our immigration system is broken and needs
to be fixed. And my preference continues to be that Congress act. I don't think
anybody thinks that Congress is going to act in the short term, but hope springs
eternal that after the midterm elections they may act. In the meantime, what
I've asked Jeh Johnson to do is to look at what kinds of executive authorities
we have in order to make the system work better. And we've had a lot of
stakeholder discussions; that set of proposals is being worked up. And the one
thing that I think has happened was the issue with unaccompanied children that
got so much attention a couple of months back. And part of the reason that was
important was not because that represented a huge unprecedented surge in overall
immigration at the border, but I do think that it changed the perception of the
American people about what's happening at the borders. And so one of the things
we've had, have had to do is to work through systematically to make sure that
that specific problem in a fairly defined area of the border, that we're
starting to deal with that in a serious way. And the good news is we've started
to make some progress.
I mean, what we've seen so far is that throughout the summer the number of
apprehensions have been decreasing- maybe that's counterintuitive, but that's a
good thing because that means that fewer folks are coming across. The number of
apprehensions in August are down from July, and they're actually lower than they
were August of last year. Apprehensions in July were half of what they were in
June. So we're seeing a significant downward trend in terms of these
unaccompanied children. And what that I think allows us to do is to make sure
that those kids are being taken care of properly, with due process. At the same
time, it's allowed us to then engage in a broader conversation about what we
need to do to get more resources down at the border.
It would have been helped along if Congress had voted for the supplemental that
I asked for; they did not. That means we've got to make some administrative
choices and executive choices about, for example, getting more immigration
judges down there. So that has kept us busy, but it has not stopped the process
of looking more broadly about how do we get a smarter immigration system in
place while we're waiting for Congress to act. And it continues to be my belief
that if I can't see congressional action, that I need to do at least what I can
in order to make the system work better. But some of these things do affect
timelines, and we're just going to be working through as systematically as
possible in order to get this done. But have no doubt; in the absence of
congressional action, I'm going to do what I can to make sure the system works
better. All right, thank you, guys