[Baldwin:] Any minute now, we are expecting to hear straight from the Pentagon. Details of this daring night time military rescue mission inside of Syria in the sands of Northern Syria this summer that failed to bring home American journalist, James Foley. Foley was gone, according to U.S. officials, when the Special Forces landed in the desert and battled their way to this oil refinery near Raqqa in Syria where they had hoped to find Foley and perhaps other Americans held hostage by ISIS. Weeks later, we now know James Foley is dead. His shocking execution having stirred both deep concern and anger among Americans. As we await Secretary Chuck Hagel and Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey at the Pentagon, we'll bring that live, let me pursue another strand to the story. Because a story the story out today says ransoms paid by European governments to ISIS have become one of the terror group's biggest sources of income. Did you realize that? Perhaps their biggest source of income at all, and that is where they're getting their money, from ransoms with these hostages. I want you to take a listen to this interview, this gentleman from Erin Burnett "OUTFRONT."
[David Rohde, Journalist Once Held By Taliban:] Kidnappings are working. The al Qaeda affiliates have raised $125 million from kidnappings in the last five years, $60 million alone last year. France denies it. Germany, Spain, other countries, they pay ransoms. There were journalists from France and Spain who were held with Foley by the Islamic State. Ransoms were paid for them. They are home safe now. Jim Foley is dead.
[Baldwin:] Now, at one time, Jim Foley's captors reportedly set a ransom of $130 million. But did not get it, didn't get the ransom from the family, not from his employers and not from the U.S. government. United States says paying ransoms to terrorists only encourages more hostage-taking. And as we await, a reminder, Secretary Hagel and also Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey. Let me bring in two people. We have Michelle Kosinski. She is our CNN White House correspondent and then here with me in New York, Bob McFadden, a former special agent in charge of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and also with the Sufan Group. So Michelle Kosinski, first to you, we know that the administration is on record saying it did not want to disclose the secret operation to try to rescue Jim Foley, but they are doing so anyway. Tell me why.
[Michelle Kosinski, Cnn White House Correspondent:] Yes, I know. And whenever you hear that, I think there are always you know, everybody wants to be a skeptic and get to the heart of the information. And you want to say, really? Did the White House not want to get this out there, possibly to show that a significant rescue attempt was made? But I just had a lengthy conversation with the senior administration official saying that the reason the administration now is not even confirming or denying in many cases some of the details that have already leaked out is because they say it is not outside the realm of possibility that there will be another rescue attempt in the future. And also, they insist they did not want the details to come out, because they say at the time of this extraordinary but ultimately unsuccessful operation on the weekend of July 4th, the ISIS fighters were not even 100 percent sure that the people they ended up fighting there on the ground were Americans. And that now knowing that, that could change ISIS reactions. And this official explained that the risk of the U.S. losing the intelligence path that it's been following to try at least to get to these hostages is a very real risk. They say they have access now to several streams of intelligence coming from them in regards to the situation. And this operation in particular wasn't solely related to those military advisers, as they were called. Remember, up to 300 military advisers that were authorized to go into Iraq, remember, not Syria. But that was only days before this operation happened. So the official is saying this wasn't directly, solely related to the intel gathered by those advisers, but that was a part of it. So they do have multiple streams, but they point out that those streams of intelligence are difficult at best and also conflicting. I also found one other point that was extremely interesting, was that officials say they know the number of hostages that they're dealing with here in the cluster. And that one other, at least, including Steven Sotloff, is thought to be American Brooke.
[Kosinski:] OK. I was wondered if there was a precise number on it, mentioning just other hostages, potential future rescues, also talking about the potential for future brutality with Bob. Because we know ISIS is threatening now to kill this other American hostage, Steven Sotloff. And I don't know if the government would ever tell us exactly how many people they believe to have hostage. But we're talking potentially, what do you think, several other Americans?
[Robert Mcfadden, Former Special Agent In Charge, Ncis:] Well, some of the reports coming out that there may be two or three more. But as you rightfully point out, extraordinarily sensitive information about those things. And what's going on deep behind the scenes to try to, one, work the intelligence as to where they are. Because rest assured, when American citizens are in this type of situation, there is always a great, great effort to but even the number that might be involved, very, very sensitive matter.
[Baldwin:] Even just talking about the hate to say like a price tag, but what these militants are demanding for the lives of these different hostages, the fact that it is not U.S. policy to pay ransom. But yet we have seen other examples in just reading about this today. France has done it, Spain has done it. Has there ever been an internal conversation within U.S. intelligence considering changing policy or not at all?
[Mcfadden:] I don't know about any discussion, but I would be very, very doubtful of that because U.S. policy has been consistent for a long time. There will be no negotiation for ransom money. Same with the U.K., the policy has been consistent. As you mentioned, some of the European countries and entities
[Baldwin:] Let me cut you off. Let's go live to the Pentagon.
[Chuck Hagel, Defense Secretary:] by the ISIL, as the Department of Defense confirmed yesterday, earlier this summer, the United States attempted a rescue of a number of American hostages held in Syria including Jim Foley. We all regret that mission did not succeed, but I'm very proud, very proud of the U.S. forces that participated in it. And the United States will not relent our efforts to bring our citizens home and their captors to justice. Jim Foley's murder was another tragic demonstration of the ruthless, barbaric ideology of ISIL. ISIL militants continue to massacre and enslave innocent people. And persecute Iraq Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish minority populations. Given the nature of this threat, at President Obama's direction and the request of the Iraqi government, the U.S. military has provided assistance to Iraqi security forces in order to protect U.S. personnel and facilities. And support Iraq's efforts to counter ISIL, in addition to providing humanitarian assistance. American air strikes and American arms and assistance helped Iraqi and Kurdish forces blunt ISIL's advance around Erbil where American diplomats and troops are working and helped the Iraqis retake and hold Mosul Dam. A breach of the dam would have threatened the lives of thousands of Iraqis, as well as Americans in our facilities in Baghdad and prevented the Iraqi government from providing critical services to its citizens. The United States led an international effort to address the humanitarian crisis that unfolded at Mt. Sinjar. As there continues to be an acute humanitarian need elsewhere in Iraq. The U.S. appreciates the partnership of the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Italy and Australia, and the United Nations in helping provide relief. I expect more nations to step forward with more assistance in the weeks ahead. Overall, these operations have stalled ISIL's momentum, and enabled Iraqi and Kurdish forces to regain their footing and take the initiative. As Iraqi and Kurdish forces continue to take the initiative, the United States will continue to support them. But addressing the threat posed by ISIL to the future of Iraq requires political reform in Iraq. The country's peaceful station of power last week was important, and the United States will continue urging Iraq's new prime minister to establish an inclusive government that is responsive to the needs of all Iraq's citizens. The united Iraq will be a more secure and prosperous Iraq. Political reform will make it harder for ISIL to exploit sectarian divisions. The United States and the international community will increase support for Iraq in tandem, with political progress. The president, the chairman and I, are all very clear-eyed about the challenges ahead. We are pursuing a long-term strategy against ISIL, because ISIL clearly poses a long-term threat. We should expect ISIL to regroup and stage new offensives, and the U.S. military's involvement is not over. President Obama has been very clear on this point. Our objectives remain clear and limited, to protect American citizens and facilities, to provide assistance to Iraqi forces as they confront ISIL, and to join with international partners to address the humanitarian crisis. With that, I'll ask Chairman Dempsey for his comments and then we'll take questions. Thank you.
[General Martin Dempsey, Chairman Of The Joint Chiefs Of Staff:] Thank you, Mr. Secretary. As most of you know, I just returned on Sunday from a trip to Vietnam. And today, I have my counterpart from Singapore visiting. On Vietnam, it was quite remarkable to be in Vietnam 40 years after our departure from Vietnam, to discuss opportunities for a new relationship. Building on our historical investment and the incredible sacrifices of those who served there. My engagements in the region reinforce that we have our shoulder behind the rebalance to the Asia-Pacific, even as our military confronts challenges in other parts of the world. In fact, on Sunday, I'll depart for Afghanistan, which brings me to Iraq. Under the command of General Lloyd Austin, our efforts in Iraq have included to date seven humanitarian air drop missions, delivering 636 bundles of food, water and medical supplies. More than 60 intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance sorties daily, each day. And to date, 89 targeted air strikes conducted by United States Air Force and United States Navy aircraft. These air strikes have protected U.S. persons and facilities and helped prevent humanitarian crisis. As Iraq's political future takes shape, I would emphasize that enduring stability will depend on achieving a credible partner in the Iraqi government that must commit to being much more inclusive with all of its population than it has been thus far. And with that, I would be happy to take your questions.
[Unidentified Male:] Mr. Secretary, in your comments, you mentioned that ISIL's momentum has been stalled recently. And you said nonetheless, you expect them to regroup. My question is, why not go after ISIL where they started, which is in Syria. I know that you've described a strategy of enabling the Iraqis, both politically and militarily to draw back their gains in Iraq. But they do have a sanctuary in Eastern Syria. What is the strategy if it's not to go root them out inside Syria? Why not go that route?
[Hagel:] First, going back to your point about my statement on what our objectives are, which I just restated in my statement. I would also say, in addition to that, that and I think the president has been very clear on this. That we continue to explore all options regarding ISIL. And how best we can assist partners in that area, the Middle East, particularly in Iraq against ISIL. You all know that in the presence request for a $5 million anti-terrorism fund $500 million in there to assist an opposition. That's what we're looking at. That's what we're doing and we will continue to stay focused, as I said, on what we're doing now and explore all options as we go forward.
[Unidentified Male:] The options you refer to include air strikes across the border.
[Hagel:] Like I said, we're looking at all options. Barbara?
[Barbara Starr, Cnn Pentagon Correspondent:] I wanted to ask both of you specifically about the hostage rescue mission. You both have talked extensively over the years about protecting. Even if you had were told the news media was going to publish an article, which is what the State Department says, you repealed it because you thought the media was going to publish something. Why specifically did both of you both of you answer why did you think it was a good idea to officially acknowledge in detail the classified information classified mission about a hostage rescue when there are still American hostages there? Are you worried that this has risked other hostage lives? Will you now have a weak investigation? And was this intelligence failure, this mission? Why did you both think it was a good idea to do this? No one has ever seen either of you do this before?
[Hagel:] Why did we think it was a good idea to
[Starr:] Publicly acknowledge a classified mission for a hostage rescue. A statement came out of this building about it last night.
[Hagel:] To start with, there were a number of news outlets that were aware of the action, of the raid. And it was a decision made by the administration, which we concurred with, to address the mission recognizing everything that you said, there's always risk. There continues to be risk in every action or inaction we take. Also, the administration had informed the families of the hostages of this effort. So, it was the decision and it was unanimous that we should, in fact, acknowledge this effort without going into any of the specifics of it, which as you know we'll not. As to your question was this a failure of intelligence, no. The fact is as you all know, intelligence doesn't come wrapped in a package with a bow. It is a mosaic of many pictures, of many factors. The enemy always has a say in anything. The fact is that you have to always work that reality in to any decision that you make, but the underling objective was to do everything we could as the president has said, to rescue these hostages, knowing that their lives were in danger, clearly in danger. It's the responsibility of our government and our leaders to do all we can to take action when we believe there might be a good possibility of, a good chance to make a rescue effort successful. This operation, by the way, was a flawless operation, but the hostages were not there. So we'll do everything that we need to do that the American people would expect from their leaders to continue to do everything we can to get our hostages back.
[Starr:] General Dempsey, do you think that do you have concerns that hostage lives are at risk? Was it a good enough reason that the news media was going to write an article about this, and do you believe this was an intelligence failure?
[Dempsey:] The military I provide military advice. Military advice that was rendered in response to your question was as long as sources and methods are not revealed that it would be a policy decision on whether to release the information of the raid. As to whether it was an intelligence failure, I agree completely with the secretary of defense, the mission was executed flawlessly after a significant period of preparation and planning and rehearsal. And the it turned out that the hostages were no longer at that location.
[Starr:] Do you believe they were there at one point?
[Dempsey:] I do.
[Unidentified Male:] Both address this, talk about the long-term strategy against ISIS. Secretary of State John Kerry said they will be crushed. The president calls them a cancer. If that's the case, why are U.S. air strikes so narrowly focused and so limited, and why have you delayed providing heavy weapons to the Kurds? It seems rhetoric doesn't match U.S. efforts today.
[Hagel:] Well, first of all, we are providing a tremendous amount of military assistance to the Peshmerga through the Iraqi security forces. It is one country, and there's no question that we have accelerated. Matter of fact, all year long, we have been accelerated all the requests made by the Iraqi government for lethal assistance and equipment and we continue to do that. As to the comments made by Secretary Kerry and the president and we all share the same evaluation of ISIL, as the president has said, I've said, the chairman's said, Secretary Kerry has said, the defeat of ISIL is not only going to come at the hands of air strikes. One of the things that I noted in my comments here at the beginning of this press conference was an inclusive government in Iraq is essential as to how Iraq and the United States and all our international partners are going to also have to deal with ISIL. Military kinetic actions, air strikes are part of that. But it's bigger than just a military operation and our efforts as we have executed the president's strategy on this, are specifically targeted just as the president has said for the reasons he said. But we are working with international partners, we're working closely with Peshmerga and the ISF. We are doing everything we can within the confines of our influence to assist and recognize as we've said to deal with ISIL there in the Middle East and also recognizing that it is a threat just as we've all said. But it isn't going to just come as a result of air strikes. Strategically, there are limits to how much you can accomplish with air strikes, tactically you can accomplish a significant amount. I think we've seen that. I mentioned in my comments here. So it's the broad scope of activity and actions that we are
[Unidentified Male:] The Peshmerga still said they haven't received the heavy weapons that they requested, and you're creating a task force, I understand, on that?
[Dempsey:] A task force for the equipping effort with the Kurds, yes, the secretary has a task force that oversees that. They have begun to receive supplies not just, by the way, from us or regional partners. But also from the government of Iraq, which incidentally is not to be discounted as a significant moment with the possibility that there will be a single state of Iraq in the future. And we are providing, you know, those that were conducting assessments in those joint operation centers have continued to evolve. So this isn't just about air strikes.
[Hagel:] Margaret
[Unidentified Female:] General, do you believe that ISIS can be defeated or destroyed without addressing the cross border threat from Syria? And is it possible to contain them?
[Dempsey:] Let me start from where you ended and end up where you started. It is possible to contain them. I think we've seen that their momentum was disrupted. That's not to be discounted, by the way. Because it was the momentum itself that had allowed them to find a way to encourage the Sunni population of western Iraq and the province to accept their brutal tactics and their presence among them. So you ask, yes, the answer is they can be contained, not in perpetuity. This is an organization that has an apocalyptic end of days strategic vision, which will eventually have to be defeated. To your question, can they be defeated without addressing that part of their organization, which resides in Syria, the answer is no. That will have to be addressed on both sides of what is essentially at this point a non-existent border. And that will come when we have a coalition in the region that takes on the task of defeating ISIS over time. ISIS will only truly be defeated when it's rejected by the 20 million disenfranchised Sunni that happen to reside between Damascus and Baghdad.
[Unidentified Male:] And that requires air strikes?
[Dempsey:] It requires a variety of instruments, only one small part of which is air strikes. I'm not predicting that will occur in Syria, at least not by the United States of America, but it requires the application of all the tools of national power, diplomatic, economic, information, military.
[Hagel:] Karan?
[Unidentified Male:] Talking about ISIL in Syria, my question is for both of you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Secretary. Do you have any information that there is a link, a relation between the Assad regime and ISIL? As you may know, it the Assad regime has been striking ISIL for the last few months. Do you see yourself on the same page with the Assad regime and do you still believe that Assad is part of the problem or he might become part of a broader solution in the region?
[Hagel:] Well, Assad is very much a central part of the problem and I think it's well documented as to why. When you have the brutal dictatorship of Assad and what he has done to his own country, which perpetuated much of what is happening and has been happening in Syria. So he's part of the problem and is much a part of it as probably the central core of it. As to your quell regarding ISIL and Assad, yes, they are fighting each other as well as other terrorist groups, very sophisticated terrorist groups in Syria.
[Dempsey:] He is absolutely part of the problem.
[Hagel:] Kevin?