CNN needs to do this more often.
Newest contributor Jay Carney and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol appeared on a panel Wednesday afternoon and, naturally, disagreed with the ultimate means needed to attack ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
Carney told host Jake Tapper that while Arab allies are reluctant to put boots on the ground vs. ISIS, the same nations were initially reluctant to aid airstrikes, which they are currently doing.
“I think the president’s careful language today was a good thing. I think we need to be a little more clear about what U.S. troop presence we’re talking about; advisors, special operators. It’s not zero boots on the ground,” said the former White House spokesman. “What he has conveyed and means, I know, is that we’re not going to invade and occupy either Iraq or Syria, but it’s absolutely the case that that doesn’t mean there won’t be any Americans on the ground.”
Kristol countered, telling the recently resigned WH spokesman that the president had previously ruled out attacking Iraq and Syria in prior months, yet was currently doing so after much consternation.
“What he’s doing might contain ISIS, might degrade them, but it won’t destroy them,” he said, noting that ISIS currently holds the city of Mosul and other large territories.
“We need to destroy this organization I think, and that means a real war, not just some air war,” said Kristol, a well-noted neoconservative.
“You won’t see a land invasion, again, of Iraq and a massive occupation by U.S. troops under this president,” said the former White House flack.
Kristol pushed back again, telling Carney what it will ultimately take for ISIS to be defeated.
“He’s going to get dragged into eventually sending the 20,000 troops or so that are needed to actually destroy ISIS,” said Kristol.
Carney disagreed with that assessment, telling the former Fox News talking head, “what is true is the Iraqi army is actually more capable than we saw earlier this year. What they need is quality leadership.”