Please enable Javascript to watch this video
STEVE KORNACKI, MSNBC: What is the goal here for the United States? Can you define success when it comes to these air strikes and these humanitarian drops? Ultimately, what will make it a successful venture for the United States?
MARIE HARF, U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT: Well, Steve, thanks for having me on today. What he said yesterday is completely inline with the goals the president outlined when he announced this military action last week. First to prevent ISIL from being able to move on Erbil which these air strikes have done. They have succeeded in that mission over the past few days.
And it was also to prevent a worsening humanitarian catastrophe from turning into a full scale genocide on top of Mount Sinjar, and they have done that in combination with humanitarian air drops and also the air strikes over the past 36 hours around Mount Sinjar to protect these people. The two very discrete goals the president outlined in announcing this action has been met.
Now, there is a broader question here which is what you are getting at. How do we fight ISIL long term in Iraq and in Syria? There is a broader strategy in place and it is one that's not at the end of the day fully an American military solution. We have been clear about that. The Iraqi military forces working with the Kurds need to regroup, retrain and reequip. And we're going to help them do that but at the end of the day that's really the long-term strategy here.
KORNACKI: So, Marie, as a long-term goal then is it the goal of the United States to defeat ISIS?
HARF: Well, clearly we want to see this terrorist group not able to threaten people anymore.
KORNACKI: Yeah, I know you want to, but is that the goal? Is that the goal of the United States to defeat it?
HARF: Well, of course the goal is to defeat them operationally, yes. But what does that mean when you're looking at a terrorist group? What does that mean when you're looking at their ideology? If you've looked very specifically at what they have done in Iraq, what we want to do is not allow them to take more territory, not allow them to move on Erbil, of course further down towards Baghdad and help the Iraqis push them back. Basically retake territory. So we are helping the Iraqis do that now.
But it's a broader question. Look, you're always going to have a terrorist threat. It's how you contain it and when they try to go after your interests as we have seen them do in Syria, in Iraq, how we can bring our capabilities to bear to fight that. It's different every place you look and you have to use different tools to fight the threat.
KORNACKI: I guess the reason I'm asking so specifically there is when you hear what Secretary Kerry was talking about. When you hear Chuck Hagel, these are top officials in your administration who are talking about a threat to the civilized world. And then I hear you saying on here that ultimately this is not the fight for the United States -- you told me this is a fight for the Iraqis. It does raise the question, given how you are describing ISIS, given these very real things that people in your administration are pointing to, it raises the question, why isn't this the United States's fight?
HARF: Well, look. To be very clear, Steve, this is a fight we are invested in and we feel very deeply about and we're going to continue to be invested in. In terms of Iraqi territory specifically at the end of the day, that is a long term fight the Iraqi security forces need to be able to handle with our support, but to be able to handle on their own.
We will work with them as we did with many countries around the world who faced very serious terrorist threats to share intelligence, to share surveillance and reconnaissance, help them find targets to go after these guys. So just because there is no long-term massive American military solution doesn't mean that we're not going to play a role and it doesn't mean that we're not going to be helping. But at the end of the day we can't do it for them. (Hardball, August 12, 2014)