Trump announces Syria strikes. TRANSCRIPT: 04/13/2018. The Rachel Maddow Show


April 13, 2018

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Chris. Thanks, my friend. Much

We`re used to Fridays being very busy and having lots of unexpected stuff
going on. Tonight is a different kind of Friday. We are awaiting remarks,
live remarks from the president that should start at any moment.

We believe these remarks are going to concern a potential military strike
in Syria. One of the signs this evening that something was going to be
happening presumably out of the White House was when we found out that vice
president Mike Pence, who`s in South America, he`s in Lima, Peru,
unexpectedly left what he was doing and went back to his hotel. That was
part of how we got sort of informal confirmation that we were expecting
some sort of statement from the White House.

Honestly, all week long, we`ve been wondering if there was going to be some
sort of statement or if we were going to find out that there had been a
military strike. Saturday, this past Saturday was the gas attack that
prompted what we expected to be a U.S. military response. That gas attack
this Saturday happened almost exactly at the one-year anniversary of
President Trump ordering a missile strike on Syria last year in response to
a different chemical attack by the Assad regime against its own people.

Last year that was 59 missiles, 59 Tomahawk missiles that were fired at an
air field. That event last year, April 7th, is not perceived to have had
any strategic impact in Syria. It`s not perceived to have changed the
course of the war in any significant way, even to have changed the course
of American involvement in the Syrian civil war in any significant way.

But now exactly one year later as gas attacks have continued, as the Assad
regime has continued to consolidate its hold on that country, and as Iran
and Russia have been even more steadfast in their support of Assad in that
continuing civil war, it looks like the president is poised again this
evening to announce yet another military engagement. Again, we`re watching
that podium there because we`re expecting the moment the president here at
any moment.

Courtney Kube is going to be standing by for us at the Pentagon. She`s
been there for us all this evening waiting for the latest briefings.

We`re also – I mean, you hear from the president on nights like this. You
also hear from military experts. In terms of in the region and on the
ground reporting, we expect to be hearing from Richard Engel, who is in


MADDOW: Turkey, of course, is an important player here that almost never
gets discussed when we`re talking about Assad and his allies. But Turkey
and Iran and Russia are key allies for the Assad regime.

ITN, the British news service, has reported tonight that British jets have
taken off from Cyprus. We don`t know where they were headed, but with the
time difference, it`s seven hours ahead between now and Syria. That means
it`s roughly 4:00 a.m. in Syria right now. If British jets are taking off
from Cyprus, there is speculation that this may be some sort of event that
involves not just American military power but also our allies.

I`m told that we are less than a minute out now from the president`s
remarks. We don`t know how long these remarks are expected to be. We are
expecting that these remarks are only going to be about a military strike
in Syria. If you`ve been following the news today, you know that there is
a lot of news today, particularly news involving the scandal that surrounds
the president, the Russia investigation and a newly announced criminal
investigation into his lawyer.

The president`s going to address us live from the White House right now.

time ago, I ordered the United States Armed Forces to launch precision
strikes on targets associated with the chemical weapons capabilities of
Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. A combined operation with the armed
forces of France and the United Kingdom is now underway. We thank them

Tonight, I want to speak with you about why we have taken this action.

One year ago, Assad launched a savage chemical weapons attack against his
own innocent people. The United States responded with 58 missile strikes
that destroyed 20 percent of the Syrian Air Force.

Last Saturday, the Assad regime again deployed chemical weapons to
slaughter innocent civilians – this time, in the town of Douma, near the
Syrian capital of Damascus. This massacre was a significant escalation in
a pattern of chemical weapons use by that very terrible regime.

The evil and the despicable attack left mothers and fathers, infants and
children, thrashing in pain and gasping for air. These are not the actions
of a man. They are crimes of a monster instead.

Following the horrors of World War I a century ago, civilized nations
joined together to ban chemical warfare. Chemical weapons are uniquely
dangerous not only because they inflict gruesome suffering, but because
even small amounts can unleash widespread devastation.

The purpose of our actions tonight is to establish a strong deterrent
against the production, spread, and use of chemical weapons. Establishing
this deterrent is a vital national security interest of the United States.
The combined American, British, and French response to these atrocities
will integrate all instruments of our national power – military, economic,
and diplomatic. We are prepared to sustain this response until the Syrian
regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents.

I also have a message tonight for the two governments most responsible for
supporting, equipping, and financing the criminal Assad regime. To Iran,
and to Russia, I ask: What kind of a nation wants to be associated with the
mass murder of innocent men, women, and children?

The nations of the world can be judged by the friends they keep. No nation
can succeed in the long run by promoting rogue states, brutal tyrants, and
murderous dictators.

In 2013, President Putin and his government promised the world that they
would guarantee the elimination of Syria`s chemical weapons. Assad`s
recent attack – and today`s response – are the direct result of Russia`s
failure to keep that promise.

Russia must decide if it will continue down this dark path, or if it will
join with civilized nations as a force for stability and peace. Hopefully,
someday we`ll get along with Russia, and maybe even Iran – but maybe not.

I will say this: The United States has a lot to offer, with the greatest
and most powerful economy in the history of the world.

In Syria, the United States – with but a small force being used to
eliminate what is left of ISIS – is doing what is necessary to protect the
American people. Over the last year, nearly 100 percent of the territory
once controlled by the so-called ISIS caliphate in Syria and Iraq has been
liberated and eliminated.

The United States has also rebuilt our friendships across the Middle East.
We have asked our partners to take greater responsibility for securing
their home region, including contributing large amounts of money for the
resources, equipment, and all of the anti-ISIS effort. Increased
engagement from our friends, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab
Emirates, Qatar, Egypt, and others can ensure that Iran does not profit
from the eradication of ISIS.

America does not seek an indefinite presence in Syria under no
circumstances. As other nations step up their contributions, we look
forward to the day when we can bring our warriors home. And great warriors
they are.

Looking around our very troubled world, Americans have no illusions. We
cannot purge the world of evil, or act everywhere there is tyranny.

No amount of American blood or treasure can produce lasting peace and
security in the Middle East. It`s a troubled place. We will try to make
it better, but it is a troubled place. The United States will be a partner
and a friend, but the fate of the region lies in the hands of its own

In the last century, we looked straight into the darkest places of the
human soul. We saw the anguish that can be unleashed and the evil that can
take hold. By the end of the World War I, more than one million people had
been killed or injured by chemical weapons. We never want to see that
ghastly specter return.

So today, the nations of Britain, France, and the United States of America
have marshaled their righteous power against barbarism and brutality.

Tonight, I ask all Americans to say a prayer for our noble warriors and our
allies as they carry out their missions.

We pray that God will bring comfort to those suffering in Syria. We pray
that God will guide the whole region toward a future of dignity and of

And we pray that God will continue to watch over and bless the United
States of America.

Thank you, and good night. Thank you.

MADDOW: The president speaking live from the White House, announcing new
military strikes on Syria.

Just a point of personal privilege here just for a second. You know, it is
– this is not personal. It is not just spectacle. It is not just

As we follow the news in these incredible days that we have been having
recently in our country, it is worth considering on a night like tonight
that there are – there are national security consequences to having a
presidency that is as chaotic as Mr. Trump`s presidency, a presidency that
is as consumed by scandal and criminal intrigue as his presidency is. It
has national security consequences when the president orders missile
strikes on Syria on a night like tonight.

The strategic effect of that strike will be assessed by both our allies and
our enemies. Other countries and entities involved in the fight in Syria
are considering their role in Syria are going to try to figure out how
they`re going to react to this U.S. strike. It will affect those other
countries` view of this strike, it will affect their reaction to it, it
will therefore affect the utility of this military strike if the president
of the United States is believed to have issued the order to launch this
strike tonight even in part because people think he wanted to distract from
a catastrophic domestic scandal that is blowing up at home at the same

The perception that the president may have ordered these strikes in part
because of scandal will affect the impact and the effectiveness of these
military strikes. Unavoidably. Even if the tail is not wagging the dog,
even if you give the president every benefit of the doubt, even if his
calculations about whether to launch this action against Syria tonight was
taken with absolutely no regard for what else is going on in the
president`s life right now, what else is going on in the president`s life
right now unavoidably creates a real perception around the globe that that
may have been part of the motivation both for what he did and particularly
for when he did it.

And it`s – it is – it is a sad thing and it is an upsetting thing in
terms of American influence in the world and the risks that we take when we
use American military power anywhere. But that perception, that this
president under this much siege may have made this decision that was in any
way inflected by the scandals surrounding him, that by necessity has shaped
America`s national security options for who we are in the world tonight and
it will unavoidably shape the impact of this military action.

We were on watch today for the U.S. military to potentially launch some
sort of strike versus Syria in reaction to the chemical attack that Assad
launched on his own people last weekend. Tonight, the “Wall Street
Journal” reported that the president was prodding his military advisers to
agree to a large strike, a more sweeping strike in Syria, quote, than they
consider prudent. The president wanting a bigger strike reportedly this
evening according to the “Wall Street Journal” than what his advisers
thought was wise.

Defense Secretary James Mattis was said to be, quote, resisting. “The
Journal” reporting tonight that over the past two days, Defense Secretary
James Mattis twice said no to strike opportunities in Syria but “The
Journal” further reported that James Mattis stood alone in that opposition.
According to “The Journal`s” reporting tonight, Trump`s brand new national
security adviser John Bolton, quote, “favored an attack that would be

Well, now the strike has been announced, although with no actual details
from the president. This, of course, is life and death news that we have
been waiting for and now we are watching very closely tonight. Now that
the strikes have been announced by the president from the White House,
we`ve now got to figure out the scale of the strike and its targets and its
likely effects in every way.

Joining us now from the Pentagon is Courtney Kube, NBC News national
security and military reporter.

Courtney, thank you very much for being with us.

What can you tell us about the president`s decision, the timing, and what
do we know about the scale of this effort?

KUBE: We know very little, as you mentioned, Rachel. A couple of things
that he mentioned were these are precision strikes on President Bashar al
Assad`s chemical infrastructure. We don`t know exactly what that means
yet. But he also mentioned that the U.S. and the British and the French,
who he said were part of this alliance, part of this strike package, that
they were willing to – or prepared to sustain this response.

So, what that means is it`s possible this could be more than one night of
targeting. We don`t know exactly what the targets will be, though. We`ve
been hearing for the past several days that military planners have been
talking about hitting the chemical infrastructure. So what that means is
potentially storage facilities. We`re waiting to hear, the Pentagon is
going to brief at 10:00 p.m. tonight and hopefully give us some more
specifics about exactly what happened here, including the platforms.

Did this come from U.S. Navy ships? Was this from aircraft overhead? What
specifically did they hit? And what exactly does the president mean by a
potential sustained response to this?

We reported exclusively yesterday, actually, Rachel, that, you know, the
U.S. now has evidence that President Bashar al Assad, the Syrian regime,
are behind – were behind this chemical attack last weekend. And President
Trump spoke directly to Iran and Russia tonight and called them out for
their involvement in that attack and their support of the Assad regime.

So, you know, as you said, Rachel, we`re still waiting for the specifics
here but President Trump announced for the second time in just over a year
the United States military has struck directly against President Bashar al
Assad`s military and regime in Syria.

MADDOW: Courtney, the only thing I`m able to add as we`re just starting to
get initial information is that “Reuters” has just reported that explosions
have been heard on the east side of Damascus, capital city in Syria.

Do we know anything about efforts to target populated areas versus non-
populated areas, targeting specifically military infrastructure versus the
kinds of chemical infrastructure you were describing that might conceivably
be moved in among urban populations?

KUBE: So, all we can really point to is what we`ve seen in the past. And
what I know, you know, from years of covering the U.S. military, I can tell
you historically what we usually see is that the reason they`ll take
strikes in the middle of the night is they`re trying to limit the
casualties. They`re trying to limit certainly civilian casualties.

But when they`re taking strikes on infrastructure in the middle of the
night, that is generally because that`s a time when there aren`t going to
be a lot of people around. So let`s say, for instance, if they were to
strike some sort of Syrian military regime building – well, it`s right
now, you know, very early morning in Syria, in Damascus. Most likely the
building wouldn`t be as staffed as it would be at noon.

But like I said, we`re still waiting to hear exactly what it is that they
struck and the kind of targets and also the assets that they used. We
really don`t know much from President Trump.

But I mean the one thing that I thought was also very interesting from his
speech just now, from his statement was he specifically called out the fact
that the regime has been using chemicals here. We have seen this regime
target its people, target civilians for years. They use barrel bombs.
They drop any kind of ordnance, mortars, rockets, munitions on their
people. But this was the line that President Trump, he called here, he
called it particularly gruesome when they attack their people with

And so, you know, as I`ve said, we`ve seen yet another time that the U.S.
military has responded. Of course, another thing that`s very different
from this attack, or from the response from last April of 2017 is this is a
coalition. The British and the French are involved. We don`t know how
much, though. We have no idea of the coordination here.

Hopefully, this 10:00 briefing tonight will give us a better sense of some
of these specifics. This Pentagon press corps, if we`re one thing, it is
we are a group that wants to know the very nitty-gritty, the details of
these operations. Hopefully, we`ll be able to get that.

MADDOW: And, Courtney – that`s exactly right. As we are awaiting that,
until we know more about the type of military effort this is, the scale of
the targeting, the exact strategic goals here and the likelihood of
achieving those goals, one of the things that we`re left to try to figure
out before we get that information from the Pentagon is the decision
process. There has been some sort of eyebrow-raising reporting about who
has been advocating what within the administration. What the president
wanted here. How the strike a year ago was viewed. The brand new national
security adviser John Bolton is seen as being on the hawkish end of the
hawkish wing of the more hawkish of the two parties.

And this is – he`s not yet one week on the job, he was described in the
“Wall Street Journal” tonight as wanting these strikes to be, quote,
“ruinous.” Defense Secretary James Mattis on the contrary was described as
having resisted some of the efforts to – some of the arguments that these
should be larger strikes.

Do we know anything about those internal discussions about who was pushing
for what on either in terms of the scale of this or the timing?

KUBE: We know that Secretary Mattis has frequently talked about his
concern about drawing the U.S. military further into a conflict like the
one in Syria. It is – it is an extremely complicated civil war that`s
going on on the ground in there. What the U.S. military is doing is
specifically going after ISIS. They`re really actually in a relatively
small pocket in eastern Syria right now, the U.S. military, working with
Syrian Democratic forces targeting ISIS.

So, Secretary Mattis has time and time again talked about the United States
not being drawn further into this conflict that involves Russia and Iran on
the ground. We have heard that the administration has wanted a larger
response to the attack further into this conflict that involves Russia and
Iran on the ground. We have heard that the administration has wanted a
larger response to the attack last weekend than we saw in April 2017.

Remember, April 2017, that was really meant to send a signal, send a
message. Look at the targets. They pocked up on one Syrian military
airfield. They pocked it up, they hit some of the aircraft. It had an
impact on the military but it was really short-lived.

It was pretty cheap and pretty quick for them to rebuild that runway. They
had other aircraft. And they were able to use Russian military aircraft,
frankly, to take over some of these operations. It did not have a long-
term strategic impact on the ground in Syria.

So, now, that Bashar al Assad has used chemicals again killing more than 40
people reportedly from U.S. officials I`ve spoken with and injuring upwards
of 500. The U.S. didn`t want to do something that would just send another
signal that Bashar al Assad could ignore. And there`s also the possibility
that, you know, if Bashar al Assad continues to attack his people and the
U.S. continues to respond in the same way that sort of sets a line, he
knows how far he can push and what the United States will do.

So, the U.S. was really painted into a corner here to have to respond in a
bigger way. Just the fact that this is an international response in and of
itself is larger than we saw in April of last year. But Secretary Mattis,
he is very cautious about not letting the U.S. military get drawn further
into this conflict, which by all accounts is really a quagmire on the

MADDOW: Courtney Kube, NBC News national security and military reporter.
Courtney, I know this is going to be a long late night for you reporting
this out. Thank you for being with us tonight. I know we`ll be talking to
you later on when you get more details. Much appreciated.

KUBE: Thank you.

MADDOW: Courtney`s on standby for us at the pentagon tonight.

I should tell you that the British Prime Minister Theresa May as Courtney
was just saying there, it`s an international effort, has just released a
statement saying: This evening, I`ve authorized British armed forces to
conduct coordinated and targeted strikes to degrade the Syrian regime`s
chemical weapons capability and deter their use. We`re acting together
with our American and French allies.

I want to go now to the White House. Hallie Jackson is NBC News White
House correspondent, and she`s been reporting tonight on the evolution of
this as a decision tonight, the involvement of White House staffers and how
much we knew about how – about the fact that this was coming before we
actually got this announcement.


incredibly close hold. I can tell you that. Even as members of the press
had been gathered in the room where the presidential was speaking, they had
been asked not to report that because of national security basically. The
reason given was the safety of the troops who are carrying out some of the
action we`ve been talking about tonight.

I can tell you that I just spoke with a senior administration official who
tells me that relevant lawmakers over on Capitol Hill just down
Pennsylvania Avenue were notified just prior, presumably just prior to the
president speaking. I can`t tell you how many minutes but we`re talking
about leadership, armed services, foreign relations, for example, that knew
that the president would be making this announcement. Again, very tightly
held here at the White House, at least tonight.

But Rachel, that was not the case just a couple of days ago because
President Trump himself tweeted “get ready Russia.”

MADDOW: Right.

JACKSON: Putting out this warning. Putting Vladimir Putin on notice that
this is coming. It could only be read one way. It could only be read as
strikes imminent. The question had just been how many, where, and when.

And now, we at least have some. We`re beginning to get some of the answers
to those questions. The president then tried to re-inject this element of
surprise yesterday when he said, hey, I never said – in a tweet, I never
said just how soon it was going to be, maybe soon or maybe not at all.

But at this point, it looked as though frankly the train was down the
tracks when it came to these discussions, particularly you`re talking about
this new statement just in from Theresa May, particularly with Prime
Minister May and with Emmanuel Macron of France. That was one thing
consistently that I heard really all week long from White House officials
was we are coordinating very closely with those two nations, with those two

There`s no expectation ever, Angela Merkel or Germany would be involved in
this, for example, and that`s what we ultimately did see. But the
cooperation with regional allies and specifically with May and Macron was
incredibly important, Rachel.

So, listen, significant moment for Donald Trump tonight, particularly given
that just a couple of weeks ago, this was a president who was reluctant to
even keep troops in Syria at all based on our reporting. Now, as we
learned just in the last 24 hours or so, he had actually wanted a tougher
response. His defense official had been concerned and said, hey, maybe
pull back, we don`t want to completely inflame things with Iran and Russia.

But it was notable, Rachel, in his remarks, and you know this, this is a
president whose rhetoric has not always been as tough as some of his
critics have wanted to see on Russia. Tonight he issued a warning to
`Vladimir Putin and said, and I`m paraphrasing here, don`t go down that
dark road. So, really putting Putin on notice.

And that I think is one of the big storylines that we`re going to have to
be watching over the next 48 hours as this unfolds.

MADDOW: It`s – what you`re talking about there in terms of the whipsawing
around on the messaging here, I mean, I think it can`t be sort of under –
we shouldn`t understate it. As recently as last week, the president is
reported to have erupted in a Situation Room meeting, saying that not only
did he want all U.S. troops out of Syria, he wanted them out within 48
hours, which is something that probably logistically wouldn`t even be
possible if he had a magic wand.

Then that`s followed immediately by the new hawkish national security
adviser John Bolton coming in. We get on the anniversary of U.S. missile
strikes in Syria, we then get another chemical attack in Syria.

The president then says, get ready, Russia, the missiles are coming. The
White House aides then told reporters they were shocked and alarmed by
those comments. There was no decision made at that point that there was
going to be a strike, there was no negotiations – negotiations had not
been completed with our allies like the U.K. and France that those things
were going to happen.

“The Wall Street Journal” reporting as recently as this evening that there
was incredible differences of opinion between the president and his defense

So, there has been – I feel like it`s whipsawing but it`s gone back and
forth and back again in terms of what to expect here. Hallie, I have to
ask you about – because of that in particular, I have to ask you about
whether there have been – there`s been sort of appreciation of the
sensitivities that the country might feel about this decision given the
other news that`s been breaking around the president. I mean, federal
prosecutors in New York confirmed today that the president`s long-time
personal lawyer is under criminal investigation. Just a couple of hours
ago, “McClatchy” news service reported that a key element of the
Christopher Steele Russia dossier that relates to the president`s personal
attorney Michael Cohen is something that Robert Mueller`s investigators
have received evidence to support.

The president has been absolutely off the hook, upset at the FBI and the
Russia investigation in particular over the last couple of days with James
Comey now doing his first interview about his new book, which accuses the
president of all sorts of things.

Are they sensitive to the perception that the president may be making this
announcement to distract from his woes?

JACKSON: So, a couple of interesting points you that bring up there,
Rachel. To the sensitivity aspect of it, I haven`t had a chance to sort of
run back in and talk to folks inside. I imagine that if anything they
would take umbrage to that assumption, as one might predict that they
would. Given that they would point to sort of the national security pieces
to this and what`s at play here.

I will say just to give you a sense, though, of everything that is
happening, the avalanche of news, as we are literally sitting here having
this conversation about the potential and the military action that the
president is now taking in Syria, I heard from Michael Cohen`s lawyer –
talk about juggling stories. And there was that report that I think you
referenced earlier from McClatchy indicating that Michael Cohen perhaps had
in fact traveled to Prague during the 2016 campaign. It`s something he had
vociferously denied back when that was first revealed, and something that
according to McClatchy, the special counsel is looking at and has evidence
of happening.

Cohen`s lawyer, we just heard from him saying that is definitively not
true, that that report is not true. Telling you first, haven`t even had a
chance to send a note to our NBC News team, Rachel.

But I share that with you because this is the moment in time that we are
in. Where you have a president who is taking, not just contemplating now
but taking significant military action overseas at the same time by our
reporting incredibly frustrated, furious with Rod Rosenstein, with Robert
Mueller, with the special counsel investigation, angry at the raid of his
long-time lawyer`s home, somebody who is now under investigation after
having been in his circle for decades, and at the same time looking ahead
next week to a talk with the prime minister of Japan about meeting with
North Korea, Rachel.

So, a lot`s happening, to say the least.

MADDOW: I`ll put your note in the system if you want me to.

JACKSON: Thank you.

MADDOW: Hallie Jackson, NBC White House correspondent. Much appreciated,

I should tell you, while I`ve been talking about lots of things happening
at once. Ayman Mohyeldin, who`s an incredible reporter who`s here with us
now at NBC, has just reported that Syrian state television has broken into
programming. It`s about 4:30 in the morning in Syria right now. They`re
about seven hours – they are seven hours ahead of the East Coast time in
the United States.

Syrian state TV has broken into programming and is now reporting that
Syrian air defense forces have launched counterstrikes against the, quote,
American, French and British aggression on Syria.

Syria does have relatively advanced air defense systems. We had been
expecting that if there were manned aircraft rather than missiles or drones
that were involved in a significant air attack in Syria tonight or at any
time that Syrian air defenses would have to be part of the calculus in
terms of how the attack would be structured, what the first targets would
be and what the overall expectations could be for what could be hit

Joining us now for more on that and the rest of this news is Colonel Jack
Jacobs, MSNBC military analyst, Medal of Honor recipient.

Colonel Jack, it`s a pleasure to have you with us. Thanks for being with
us tonight.

Let me ask you about the air defense force factor. How serious are Syrian
air defenses and how much would that have to factor in to planning for this
strike tonight?

JACK JACOBS, MSNBC MILITARY ANALYST: Well, they`re not insubstantial, but
we`re probably launching missiles, both sea-launched cruise missiles and
air-launched cruise missiles launched from B-52s. Some distance away,
1,000 miles away perhaps.

Missiles are extremely difficult to shoot down. We`re not very good at it,
and the Syrians are even less good at it. You can occasionally knock one
down, but they`re extremely difficult to knock down.

But what it sounds like in that – that announcement that says
counterstrikes sounds less like air defenses. A counterstrike usually
means a strike on the enemy`s positions. Now, it would be extremely
difficult for them to strike our ships. They`re very heavily protected.

But what they could do is fly in zones where we have American troops or
American allies like the Kurds. That`s entirely possible.

But it sounds more like bluster. It`s very, very difficult to shoot down
an incoming missile, Rachel.

MADDOW: Colonel Jack, we had an initial report very quickly after the
president`s remarks concluded, a report from “Reuters”, which said that
explosions could be heard on the eastern side of Damascus. Damascus
obviously the most populous city in Syria and an urban area even – a
densely populated area despite the absolute value of its population.

Are you surprised to hear that Damascus at least from this initial report
might be one of the targets? Would you have expected the targeting here to
be more far-flung military locations?

JACOBS: Well, if the objective is to knock out some of their capability,
either their stores of chemicals, which I don`t think we`re interested in
doing that because it would just disperse them and that would be much more
dangerous to the population, or to their delivery means, which are
typically helicopters, you might expect there to be helicopter locations,
bases near populated areas and particularly around Damascus.

So, my guess is they`re attacking delivery means rather than the stores
themselves. And we have a pretty good way of tracking exactly where the
assets are. Meanwhile, in the interim, when we first started talking about
the fact that we were going to attack, when the president says well, the
missiles are coming is and so on, the Russians have been moving their
assets, including aircraft to safe locations and my guess one of the
reasons we`ve waited is so that the Russians would have an opportunity to
move their stuff away.

But probably air bases near Damascus and helicopters in particular.

MADDOW: When the president used the word “sustained” to talk about this
response, did that say anything to you about the scope of this campaign or
how long it might last?

JACOBS: Yes, we`ve been talking about that for some time in discussions
with other people who`ve been looking at it come to the same conclusion.
You remember back in April when we launched the attacks with the 59 cruise
missiles, that was a one-shot deal. It was pretty much toward one target.
And Trump telegraphed what he was going to do a couple of days ago when he
was discussing it in public.

What you`re probably going to have here are several days` worth of attacks
and multiple targets that we`ve picked out that the Defense Department has
picked out as the most likely targets for us to use. So, not a – more
likely to be not a one-shot deal like it was in April, but a couple of –
not a sustained attack but a couple of days` worth of attacks.

MADDOW: Colonel Jack, one last question for you. And if you do not want
to answer this question, you absolutely do not have to and you can just say
good night. But I`m wondering when decisions like this are made, obviously
this gas attack that these strikes are a response to happened last week.
The president said early in the week that the missiles were coming, get
ready Russia.

We`ve been expecting, you know, here at NBC News, we`ve been standing by
all week long every night thinking about when these things might happen.
They have been launched tonight. When these decisions are made about both
the goal and the timing, are there considerations given to the perceived
motivations of the president?

Obviously, when the United States takes a military action like this, the
rest of the world takes notice, both in terms of the actual damage done but
also what it signals in terms of American resolve and what America might do
next. If the president might be perceived to have a “wag the dog” problem,
if the president is in the midst of an increasingly consuming domestic
scandal that`s getting very, very close to him personally, is that factored
in as a military strategic matter in terms of how a military action ordered
under those circumstances might be perceived both by our enemies and by our

JACOBS: Well, I think the president uses it, surely, when he makes a
decision. And I think observations from afar, from our allies and our
enemies, from some distance, there`s a certain measure of that that is
perceived. But I think one of the reasons why it`s taken so long – I
mean, there are a couple of reasons why it`s taken so long.

And one of them I think – I mean, the timing is clearly – I don`t believe
in coincidences. But the timing is clearly a coincidence given what`s been
emanating in the domestic front. But I think our government has had a hard
time getting our allies on board. That`s taken some time.

I think also that there`s been a great deal of discussion inside the White
House and between the White House and the Defense Department about whether
or not there ought to be retaliation and punishment and what form it should
take and that`s taken time to. At the end of the day, I`m not a fan of
single factor analysis, all of these are important and you can`t discount
the “wag the dog” factor in this particular case any more than you can
discount any other factor. I think they all pile on to produce exactly
what we see now and the timing that we see now, Rachel.

MADDOW: Colonel Jack Jacobs, NBC military analyst, thank you so much for
being with us tonight, sir. Invaluable to have you here. Thank you.

We`re now going to go to Moscow. NBC News foreign correspondent Keir
Simmons is up in the middle of the night for us in Moscow.

Keir, thank you very much for joining us tonight. These strikes have been
announced by the president in conjunction with the U.K. and France.
Obviously Assad`s greatest allies in Syria are Iran and Russia and the
Russia factor here cuts a lot of different directions.

What can you tell us about the response tonight in Moscow?

hear, Rachel, you reporting that Syrian television saying that Syrian air
defenses are engaging I think you said against these strikes by the U.S.,
Britain, and France. That`s interesting. There are two forms of air
defenses in Syria, S-300, S-400. They are all Russian.

But one group of the air defenses are manned by Syrians. The other air
defenses are manned by Russians. Those Russian air defenses are ostensibly
there to protect the Russians who are in the country.

And one of the questions here in Moscow in the build-up to this has been
whether the Russian air defenses would engage. It sounds as if from that
reporting from Syrian television, perhaps they are not.

We have been texting multiple and trying to contact multiple Russian
government officials here in Moscow. As you say, it is 4:00 in the
morning. We haven`t heard back from them, perhaps understandably, I did
have one message from an official at the Russian foreign ministry saying
the question of course we are asking each of them is were the Russians
given advance notice of these strikes.

The message back from one foreign ministry official saying we`ll soon find
out. So, that slightly dark Russian sense of humor there, doesn`t tell us
necessarily whether that kind of communication is taking place.

We were told in the build-up to this that there were communications between
the Russian military and between the Western military to try to avoid
Russian casualties because that clearly would be run of the concerns. Our
understanding from the Russian foreign ministry is that there are 8,500
Russian civilians in Syria. And according to polling returns from the
recent Russian elections, government officials say there are just under
3,000 members of the Russian military there. They said that because of
course they were saying how many members of the Russian military had voted
in those elections.

So, that gives you a picture of the issues here. We assume, and I think we
safely assume that there is a good deal of work under way to ensure that
Russians are not casualties of this strike because of course the real
concern or a real concern would be that that would lead to an escalation.

MADDOW: And in terms of that prospect, obviously something that sets not
just our teeth on edge but people all over the world because of the
capabilities of the Russian military and the American military. With
Russians having such a significant military presence in Syria, with reports
earlier this week that some Syrian assets may have been moved to Russian-
controlled bases in Syria, essentially to get them out of harm`s way, do
you have any clear sense, Keir, from your reporting about what the Russian
response would be, what they would do next if Russian assets are targeted
or if Russian troops or indeed civilians are harmed?

SIMMONS: That`s the question I`ve been asking Russian officials for the
past few days, as you would expect. I think that the message that we heard
from the Russian ambassador to Lebanon suggesting that Russia would strike
back at U.S. missiles, that even Russia would target the source of those
missiles, I think that was overblown.

After those comments, I spoke to a number of Russian officials both in the
Kremlin and in the foreign ministry to see, and they wouldn`t repeat that
kind of warning. Although at the same time, of course, warning very much
that there could be an escalation depending on what kind of strikes these
are and most importantly, as I was mentioning, whether Russian targets are
involved. And it does create that kind of military chess game is the kind
of thing you`re describing there, which is of course – I don`t think we
know for sure but it wouldn`t be surprising at all when you would expect
that the Syrians would be moving their assets closer to the Russian assets
in order to protect them, knowing that the U.S. would be wanting to –
would not be wanting to target Russian assets within Syria.

And then the wider question, Rachel, Russians have been bringing up over
the past few days, most recently Foreign Minister Lavrov yesterday has been
there warning that this could escalate. And Foreign Minister Lavrov saying
quite specifically, referring to his troops, saying god forbid this turns
into an intervention like Libya or the Iraq experience. The Russians, this
is the kind of argument they make here.

The Russians very strongly argued against intervention in Iraq. President
Putin has consistently said since then that it was a mistake and criticized
the West for it. And that is some of the reasoning that they bring to
arguing that an intervention like this should not happen.

MADDOW: Keir Simmons joining us from Moscow tonight and staying up till
past dark to do it. Thank you, Keir. Much appreciated to have you with us
this evening.

I want to now cross the region a little bit and go to Richard Engel, who`s
NBC News`s chief foreign correspondent and a dear friend to this show.
Richard is in Istanbul tonight covering this both in terms of what we know
about the scope of the strike and the reaction in the region.

Richard, my friend, thank you very much for being with us. What can you
tell us about your reporting thus far this evening?

We are still trying to figure out exactly what is being hit. There are
reports of at least two locations on the outskirts of Damascus that have
been targeted. Unclear exactly what they are.

One is reportedly associated with the Syrian National Guard, a regime
place, but all the attacks not exactly in Damascus center but around
Damascus. Also reports of explosions in eastern Syria. Two different
locations in eastern Syria.

But what struck me in listening to President Trump is that this isn`t
designed or wasn`t explained to be a one-off operation. He said this is an
open-ended commitment that the U.S. is prepared to continue these
operations until Bashar al Assad stops using chemical weapons. That is if
not a new war in the Middle East, it is certainly a new open-ended mission,
and it is one that carries significant risk.

Already, Syrian air defense, according to Syrian state TV, according to
some video posted on social media I was just looking at, Syrian air
defenses are in action. Syrian state TV broke into its coverage, and it is
now about 4:30 in the morning in Damascus, to tell whoever was watching
that Syrian air defenses are in action launching counterstrikes against
what it described as the U.S., French, and British aggression.

I`ve been told by U.S. officials that there were great efforts made to try
and communicate with the Russians, that this was not in any way, shape, or
form a coordinated operation with the Russians, that the Russians weren`t
happy with it, continue to oppose it, but that they were informed clearly
about U.S. intentions. That`s easy to do on day one of an operation. But
President Trump said this is an open-ended operation.

So, we will see what happens as this continues into day two, day three.
Will there be a pause? Will there be an assessment? Was that an empty
threat? But it is certainly a major commitment to say the U.S. will
respond every time there is a report of chemical weapons.

Nikki Haley today said at the U.N., there have been 50 uses of chemical
weapons by the Syrian regime in the last five years or so. So does that
mean the U.S. is going to respond in that kind of scale?

MADDOW: Richard, let me also ask you, with what you`re talking about
there, obviously we know about the admitted Russian military presence on
the ground in Syria. Syria has been a long-term beachhead for Russia in
the Middle East. We also know about irregular Russian forces, essentially
mercenary or contract forces from Russia that are playing a role in the
Syrian conflict. We also know less about but we know about the existence
of Iranian forces being involved on the ground in Russia, both the Russian
forces and Iranian forces in support of the Assad regime.

Is there worry about American intelligence, American understanding about
who`s – about who we might end up engaging with, about where those forces
are, about having clarity as to who we might be engaging with if indeed as
you say the strikes appear to be happening in multiple places and they
appear to be scheduled to go on in an indefinite fashion?

ENGEL: There absolutely should be concern, and I`m sure there is about the
intelligence picture in Syria. It is the most complex civil war that I`ve
covered in the last 20 years covering the Middle East. You have uniformed
Russian troops who are there helping the Syrian regime. It`s not exactly
clear where all those troops are based. The Russians certainly aren`t
telling their American counterparts where they are.

Then there are these unofficial Russian mercenaries that – I was with
American commanders in Syria not very long ago, and they were describing a
firefight that they got in with some of these Russian mercenaries, and they
ended up killing between 200 and 300 of them on the ground. And they felt
that they were being lied to by the Russians, that the Russians were
telling them one story and then not necessarily giving them all the facts
and then trying to cover their traces.

And this is with the Russians. With the Iranians there is even less
communication because the Iranian advisers on the ground are much less
formal. It is more of an intelligence relationship where they have
influencers there working with different militia groups, working with Iraqi
militia groups that are there to help them.

So, it is an absolute mess. And on day one it is easier to communicate.
There had been a build-up. People knew more or less that a strike was
coming in this period. President Trump tweeted it out. He said, a strike
is coming. Get ready. Get ready.

So you can more or less be precise on day one, and the Russians and the
Syrians and the Iranians can take precautions. But if this is supposed to
be continuing until the Syrians decide they`re going to cry uncle and never
use chemical weapons again, which obviously is what the U.S. mission is
designed to do, then there is a major concern or risk of hitting the wrong
target, of having people be in the wrong place at the wrong time,

MADDOW: Richard Engel, NBC News chief foreign correspondent, joining us
from Istanbul tonight. Richard, I know it`s going to be a very long night
and long morning for you. Thanks very much for being here, my friend.

ENGEL: Thank you.

MADDOW: On the left side of the screen there what you`re seeing, and we`ve
got it labeled there, it says Syrian state TV. This actually is our live
feed of what you would be seeing in Syria right now if you were on the
ground. As I said, it is seven hours ahead of the American eastern time.
So just coming up on 5:00 in the morning in Syria right now.

Syrian state TV has broken into programming. You see they`re showing the
night sky. Obviously, they`re watching for missile strikes, bombs, other
explosions. They`ve reported tonight that Syrian air defense forces have
launched, quote, “counterstrikes” against the American, French, and British
aggression on Syria.

As Keir Simmons was explaining, Syria does actually have fairly
sophisticated air defense system. They`ve got the S-300 and S-400 air
defense systems, both of which are Russian systems. Some of those are
manned by Syrian military personnel. Others are manned by Russian military

In the case of the Russian air defenses, those are there purportedly to
defend significant numbers of Russian personnel who are in uniform in
Syria. And as Richard was just explaining, there`s also significant
numbers of Russian personnel who are not in uniform in Syria, which also
complicates the geopolitical picture here. As U.S. and French and British
forces launch these strikes tonight, obviously the intent as voiced by
France and the U.K. and the United States is to hit the Assad regime in
response to it using chemical weapons against its own people again.

But when you start launching kinetic strikes inside a place as complicated
as Syria is right now, you are potentially engaging Russian targets, using
chemical weapons against its own people again. But when you start
launching kinetic strikes inside a place as complicated as Syria is right
now, you are potentially engaging Russian targets, Iranian targets, Turkish
targets, Kurdish targets, American allied targets, Syrian defense forces.

Ayman Mohyeldin, NBC reporter, reporting tonight that a Syrian opposition
figure has said that four different cities have been so far in these
strikes. The initial reports we got from Reuters that explosions had been
heard on the eastern side of Damascus.

Richard just reported moments ago, Richard Engel reported that two
locations were known – were thought to have been hit on the outskirts of
Damascus. We are getting piece by piece information.

Cal Perry is NBC News global editor of digital content. And as far as I
understand it, Cal is just off the phone, with somebody in Syria who we
believe is an eyewitness to what`s been happening thus far since these
strikes have happened.

Cal, thank you very much for joining us tonight. What can you tell us
we`ve been able to learn this evening?

talking to somebody in western Damascus. He`s huddled with his family.
He`s a journalist.

I`m marry together what he`s telling me with what Ayman is telling me, and
what we`re hearing from Syrian opposition groups. They`re confirming three
sites in and around Damascus have been hit at this hour. I`m going to walk
you through the three of them because they give us a very clear picture
that this is different than what we saw a year ago, that the United States
military looks as though they`re targeting command and control facilities
and specifically chemical weapons facilities.

The first location is the Mezzeh Air Base. That`s in the southern part of
Damascus. Very large air base. Dozens of hangars there. That would be a
command and control facility.

The second location is in Jemraya. That is in the northern part of the
city. It appears as though this was a special forces republican guard
command and control facility.

Again, I want to stress in keeping with what Keir said, in keeping with
what Richard said, there`s been a lot of time to clear out these facilities
but again, these are the facilities we`re hearing that why hit.

The third facility is in Barzeh in eastern Syria. This is a known facility
by the OPCW. It is what the Syrian government has called a, quote,
scientific research facility, that is code for a place where chemical
weapons are made by the Syrian government.

Those three sites were pummeled abo8ut 35 minutes ago. There were eight
explosions in Damascus, a series of explosions. There was about 20 minutes
of quiet, and then loud bangs that we believe are being now associated with
those surface-to-air defense batteries that the Syrians have, they call
them S-300 batteries. So, about 20 minutes of gap between the incoming
American fire and outgoing Syrian fire, Rachel.

MADDOW: OK, Cal, thank you very much.

And we are piecing together from the various sources of information we can
get, both eyewitnesses like Cal was talking to there, an eyewitness in
Damascus, in western Damascus, a journalist who was able to get on the
phone, got there, also reports from news services.

I should tell you in less than ten minutes, we are expecting to get a
briefing from the U.S. military, from the Defense Department at the
Pentagon is past is any prologue, we expect we`ll get more detail about
what the U.S. military is doing tonight, along with the French and British,
then what we got from the president. The president in his remarks at the
top of hour essentially describing the aims of these strikes, describing it
as a sustained effort. And as Richard pointed out, essentially an opened-
ended effort, rather than a one-off strike, like we saw from this president
one year ago.

But we expect at the top of the hour to get more detailed information from
the Pentagon.

I also want to now go to Beirut, to Lebanon where Bill Neely has hopefully
a little more information that he can give us in terms of what we`re
learning about targeting and the overall aims of these strikes.

Bill Neely, thank you very much for joining us.

BILL NEELY, NBC NEWS, BEIRUT: Yes, good evening, Rachel.

The latest we`re hearing from Syrian television is that the Syrians are
claiming that they have downed 13 incoming missiles. That`s not obviously
confirmed by NBC News. But that`s what the Syrian regime is reporting.

We know there are 21 air bases in Syria that are controlled by the regime.
They have about 260 war planes, more than 80 helicopters. At this point,
we don`t know whether those aircraft have been targeted.

But remember, the aim is to destroy the chemical weapons capability of
Syria. So, those are the aircraft that deliver the chemical weapons, so
one might presume those are being targeted.

Now, I know Damascus very well, I`ve been there about a dozen times. I`ve
been monitoring social media and reports by “Reuters,” and Agence France
Presse news agency and they are reporting significant strikes in three
areas in particular. To the north, to the east, and the south of Damascus.

And indeed, one trusted source has told me that this is the largest ever
series of air strikes on Damascus. Those three targets are a research
center called Jamraya which is north of Damascus. It`s thought it is a
place where chemical weapons and nonconventional weapons and missiles are
developed, and indeed it is hit by the Israeli air force earlier this year
and on at least one other occasion.

A second target east of Damascus is the Dumayr air base. Now, why that`s
significant is it`s thought that was the airbase from which the helicopters
took off last weekend to drop the chemical weapons on the suburb of
Damascus, on Douma.

And the third significant target, and again, this is backed up by what I`m
seeing on social media, some people posting videos, some people posting
audio of Syrian air defenses engaging incoming missiles.

The third site is an air base south of Damascus called Mezzeh. It`s used
by Bashar Assad`s elite republican guard.

So, President Trump talked about presentation air strikes. It would seem
from what we`re hearing from trusted sources in Damascus that those are
indeed precision strikes on significant chemical weapons facilities and on
air bases.

But, of course, Rachel, you know one question is, how long these strikes
will last? And it would seem that there are waves of airstrikes. We`ve
about nearly an hour of airstrikes, one was reported just about five
minutes ago.

But, you know, in the long-term, this doesn`t really change the calculus or
the course of the war. After these airstrikes, President Assad will still
be in power, the war will be as complicated, obviously, if not more
complicated, than it was.

So, for President Trump, the question is, you know, air strikes do not mean
– do not equal a strategy. So what comes next? Will he follow through
with what he hinted a while back that he will pull those 2,000 U.S. troops
out of eastern Syria or is he here for the medium or the long haul?

That is the strategic question that must follow tonight`s tactical air
strikes, Rachel.

MADDOW: Bill Neely joining us life from Beirut. Bill, invaluable. Thank
you very much for being with us.

I want to tell you at home, that we are just a couple minutes away from
what we expect to be a Pentagon briefing, which is likely to be at least –
again, if past is prologue, it`s likely to be more detailed in terms of
what`s happening right now in the skies above and the grounds on Syria.

Andrea Mitchell is NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent. She joins
us now by phone.

Andrea, is it your expectation we`ll get further detail about both the aims
and the scale of what`s underway tonight?

telephone): Yes, I think precisely. One of the important issues will be
did James Mattis win the argument, arguing for a more limited approach,
worried about a wider war or is the John Bolton approach?

We understand there was quite a debate over this policy that may have been
part of the reason why they need a number of days. It also could have been
communicating to the Russians to try to avoid direct hits on Russian bases
and Russian activity. As we understood the Syrian regime moving equipment
and personnel into Russian areas to use them as Russian shields if you
will. A very big concern about winning a war in the Pentagon.

There`s another concern as well is an asymmetric response from the Russian
and Iranian cyber capability, offensive capability. It could be a cyber
hit that the NSA is not (AUDIO GAP) Cyber Command based in Fort Meade has
also been geared up trying to see if any incoming from the cyber – the
cyber possibilities.

The State Department has been pretty detached from all of this. The acting
secretary of state, John Sullivan, is in Peru where he was on a mission
with the vice president, he joined the deputy national security meeting by
telecom conference and phone, but the fact is he is not in the country, is
out of the country, we do not have a secretary of state and there`s a
division in the Senate whether Mike Pompeo is going to get an easy
confirmation. There`s a lot of dissatisfaction on the Democratic side, and
you have Rand Paul on the Republican side vowing to vote against him.

Just earlier today, I was in New York and interviewing Kristen Gillibrand,
and she`s was against any action because there`s not been an authorization
of military force since right after 9/11.

MADDOW: Right, of course.

MITCHELL: There`s an expanding contingent of Democrats like Tim Kaine with
Chris Coons, Kirsten Gillibrand, and some Republicans, who believe there
should be a debate next week on the authorization of military force that`s
long overdue considering the 17 years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, it
should not become a wider war in Syria.

MADDOW: Andrea Mitchell, NBC`s chief foreign correspondent, joining us
live now.

We`re watching the podium, expecting a briefing from the Secretary of
Defense James Mattis and the Chairman of Joint Chiefs, General Dunford.


Copyright 2018 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are
protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced,
distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the
prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter
or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the