After fumbling for a definition, the Obama Administration now concedes that the United States is at war with isis. But as the u. S. Scrambles to put together a coalition of nations willing to confront the terror group, theres stunning new information on the strength of this brutal enemy. U. S. Intelligence calculates that isis may have tripled in size to more than 30,000 hardcore jihadists. Even americas top military Commander Warns that airpower alone wont destroy isis, saying the u. S. Will need reliable partners on the ground to do the fighting. Our correspondents, analysts and guests are standing by with full coverage. And we begin with chief National Security correspondent jim sciutto at the pentagon. Jim . Reporter brianna, a new development tonight. We learned today that the u. S. Will begin targeting Senior Leadership of isis. The spokesman for the pentagon saying this is no longer a defensive operation, it is offensive. It will more aggressive. And as they do that, they now know that they will be facing a more formidable enemy in isis than they had estimated just a few months ago. The Enormous Growth of isis is, say cia officials, a product of its enormous success. As isis has swept across syria and iraq, it established an Islamic State and attracted defectors from other militant groups. It has recruited sometimes forcibly now local fighters and attracted new foreign fighters. Isis can now muster between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters, up from an older estimate of just 10,000. Including hundreds of westerners, among them, a dozen or more americans. Now that president obama has vowed to degrade and destroy isis, the new estimate signals a difficult fight ahead. Presumably, its a longer fight if you have that many more fighters to degrade and to destroy. Were not just simply about degrading and destroying them, the individuals, the 20,000 to 30,000. Its about degrading and destroying their capabilities to attack targets, particularly western targets. Its about destroying their ideology. Believe me, everybody here at the pentagon knows what were up against and is taking it very seriously. Reporter the cias new assessment makes clear that syria continues to be a powerful magnet for fighters from all over the world. More than 15,000 foreign fighters from more than 80 countries, at least 2,000 of whom are westerners, have flocked to syria. Some to join the fight led by this man, abu bakr al baghdadi, the isis leader hasnt been a target of u. S. Military air strikes yet, but with the new expanded mission, that will change. When you are going after a network like this, one of the things that you also want to go after is their ability to command and control and to lead their forces. Reporter intelligence officials emphasize that while isis is a Formidable Force in numbers and fighting ability, it is still far outnumbered by the hundreds of thousands of iraqi, kurdish and soon it is hoped Syrian Forces aligned against it. We learned some more details today as well about those Syrian Forces. The other leg of this strategy, training and equipping moderate Syrian Rebels. Were told that the plan and the time line is to train about 5,000 of them, brianna, and hope that those fighters are ready within a year. Obviously, a drop in the bucket when youre talking about a fighting force of this size. But, again, officials seins emphasizing that together, they greatly outnumber the isis fighters. Jim sciutto, thank you very much for your report. After some confusing mixed messages, i will say, on the nature of this counterterrorism conflict and the, i guess, strategy that the white house is pursuing, both the white house and the pentagon now say flatly that the u. S. Is indeed at war with isis. Lets turn to cnn White House Correspondent michelle kosinski. It was this was an evolution in language that we witnessed. Reporter the administration has been getting this question over the last few days. Each time, they would say, war isnt necessarily the word to use or shifting it more to it being more of a counterterrorism operation. But suddenly today across the board in the administration, we are hearing this agreement that, yes, the u. S. Is at war against isis. The administration hasnt wanted to call this a war on isis. But is it not a war . Ultimately this International Coalition will be responsible for degrading and destroying isil. So i think what you can conclude from this is the United States is at war with isil in the same way that we are at war with al qaeda and its al qaeda affiliates all around the globe. Reporter getting to that conclusion took something of a preamble. The administration clearly wants to distinguish this operation from the u. S. s prolonged wars in iraq and afghanistan. Theyre always pointing to no u. S. Combat boots on the ground. Now today were hearing virtually the same blalanguage m the pentagon, from the state department. Thats a big change from what we were hearing only 24 hours ago from secretary of state john kerry himself and from susan rice who, when asked this very same question, answered much differently. Is the United States at war with isis . It sure sounds from the president s speech that we are. I think thats the wrong terminology. Is it fair to call it a war . Well, wolf, i dont know whether you want to call it a war or sustained counterterrorism campaign. We all know that words are important. And one Senior Administration official told cnn the reason there has been some avoidance in using that w word is they didnt want to rev up isis any more. You could say that word could panic americans and make them think that isis is a bigger threat to Homeland Security than the administration believes it is at this point. So then why now is everyone suddenly agreeing that the u. S. Is at war . We dont really know. The administration isnt really saying why there is the change. It could be just theyve gotten this question so many times, now theyre willing to agree, okay, what it looks like it is, it is. But the administration keeps emphasizing that the policy, the strategy, has not changed. That over time, this will look like a sustained counterterrorism operation with Broad International support, brianna. Michelle kosinski at the white house, thank you. Lets go in depth now with a pair of former top officials from the george w. Bush administration. Im joined by steven hadley, who was the president s National Security adviser, and former Homeland Security secretary tom ridge. Gentlemen, thank you so much for being with us. I know youre champing at the bit to talk about what we just heard michelle reporting on. We were told by a Senior Administration official that this official, not using the war word was because the administration did not want to elevate isis. Now obviously there seems to be more comfort or a need to use the word war. Do you see the change as a political or a strategic decision . I think its catching up with the reality. What weve seen over the last week is an increase in the rhetoric from the administration, both in terms of what the objective is, which is now to degrade and destroy, and then also in terms of what the threat is. The president s job wednesday night was to convince the American People, this is a serious threat and hes got a strategy to deal with it and that hes got the consistency and commitment to see it through. Those, quite frankly, have been in question with respect to syria where the administration had been reluctant to engage. Hes had a heavy lift. You see it in change of rhetoric and in change of discussion of the threat and change in policy. I think its a good thing. I think the president is finally on the way to where he needs to be. And wednesday night, i think he helped himself considerably. Is that how you read the change in rhetoric . I think theres a natural impulse around the president s advisers to try to protect the political legacy. Certainly from the campaign in 08 to today, he never wanted to be seen as a wartime president. His goal was to get america out of two wars. So to the extent, as steve said, hes really accepted the reality, it is a war. But ill tell you this. The pilots and planes and the advisers and their families think those men and women are at war. So i think its the appropriate term. We are at war with isis. But theres still one more dimension that the president , in my judgment, has failed to really talk about. This is were really at war against a belief system, a global jihadist movement. Isis is probably the latest, greatest and most significant and muscular manifestation of that global jihad. So im glad he finally recognized it. This is not counterterrorism. This is not yemen. This is not somalia. This is the real deal. Its a manifestation of a larger global scourge, global jihadism. Some of the president s supporters might say that hes reticent to use the word war because even though were seeing support from americans to take on isis, i think theres a concern about whether he might overreach. The country is also largely warweary. And part of that, a lot of folks will point to the fact that george w. Bush went to war in iraq, there were no wmds. Do you see in a way some of his reticence to use the war word coming from sort of the lasting effect of the Previous Administration . I personally think there has to be some point in time in history where the president accepts the reality as what happened under the Previous Administration cannot always be turned to as the rationale or the cause, justifying the situation you are in now. He did what he said he would do. He pulled our troops out of iraq, much to the consternation of military commanders who wanted 20,000 or 30,000 people there so they could advise the iraqi army that theyre going to try to reconstitute. I think america understands that this is a terrible, terrible militant, barbaric, medieval group, september it for what it is. And referring to history constantly, i think americans are beginning to see through that. Were you surprised by this number that were hearing, over 31,000 fighters, that isis can muster . The number had been 10,000 to 15,000. This is about a doubling now to 20,000 or 30,000. Im not surprised its gone up because in the last few weeks, we have added intelligence assets that we did not have in iraq and looking into syria. So as we make more of an intelligence commitment, the numbers are going to get bigger. The problem with isis is not just the numbers. It has got an ideology and it is operationalizing that ideology because it actually holds territories, something al qaeda tried in iraq in 2007 and 2008. Never achieved. These folks control territory. And within that territory, they have banks, they have cash, they have oil, theyve got extortion. Theyre selffinancing. And they have the romance of establishing a caliphate which makes them a magnet for extremists. This is a bigger challenge, oddly nufr, than al qaeda. And i think the American People understand that. The polls say that. I think the president is playing catchup. And the reason we uses the war word now is he doesnt have to convince the American People hes reluctant to go to war. Hes got to convince the American People that he is committed to taking on isis. Gentlemen, stick with me. Were going to continue our conversation about the threat that is isis in just a moment. Turn around every now and then i get a little bit hungry and theres nothing good around turn around, barry i finally found the right snack [ female announcer ] fiber one. I finally found the big day . Ack ah, the usual. Moved some new cars. Hauled a bunch of steel. Kept the supermarket shelves stocked. Made sure everyone got their latest gadgets. Whats up for the next shift . Ah, nothing much. Just keeping the lights on. laugh nice. Doing the big things that move an economy. See you tomorrow, mac. See you tomorrow, sam. Just another day at norfolk southern. Eenie. Meenie. Miney. Go. More adventures await in the sevenpassenger lexus gx. See your lexus dealer. Whenwork with equity experts who work with regional experts thats when expertise happens. Mfs. Because there is no expertise without collaboration. Our top story, the Obama Administration has decided that the campaign against isis is a war and the cia says the enemy has been growing a lot bigger and stronger than previously known. We are back now with steven hadley, the former National Security adviser to george w. Bush, as well as former Homeland Security secretary tom ridge. Secretary, you, i noticed during the report where we were talking about the plan to train 5,000 Syrian Rebels, moderate rebels to take on isis in syria, you seemed to kind of scoff at that number. I think the notion that we can just suddenly assemble, according to the president s speech, this ground troop coalition with the Syrian Free Army, with the iraqi army and with the kurds, i think there are some real challenges there. The kurds arent going to move outside their enclave. The army the iraqi army that were going to have to rebuild, this is going to be a major problem. Why . Because tehran is a shiiteplanted government. Theyve been at war with the sunnis and the tribal leaders and pulling that together under the new Prime Minister is critical. And then the Syrian Free Army is a work in progress. The only military thats really capable of stepping in right now to have an Immediate Impact is the United States and were certainly not going to do that. Is that your assessment . Ive been struck by the fact, steven, that i think if someone knowing your role in the Bush Administration, they might expect you to be more critical of president obama than youve been. Youve been reticent to criticize him. Well, ive been pushing for the last three years saying that syria needs to be addressed and if syria isnt addressed, it will get more violent, more will die, it will get more extremist, destabilize the neighbors and open the door for al qaeda. Ive been saying that for three years. Thats exactly what has happened. But i want to give the president his due. He has effectively changed the direction of his policy wednesday night. Thats a good thing that hes done. The point that tom made earlier is exactly right. Youre only going to defeat isis if youve got boots on the ground. And the only boots on the ground at this point really that are serious are iraq. Iraqi security forces, sunni militia and the peshmerga. So this is going to start in iraq. Were going to start rolling back isis in iraq. It will take a year or two, whatever. And during that time, were going to have to build the capability we need in syria by a much more Robust Training Program and by air strikes that keep the Syrian Forces at bay. Now, thats what the president outlined wednesday. If hes serious about it, if he will continue to talk to the American People about it and if he will implement and execute an effective program, were going to be on the road to attack isis. So i want to support the president s decision. But at the end of the day, the proof in the pudding will be whether it continues to be a priority and whether he really implements and executes the strategy. Weve been learning from sources that some of the isis fighters or isis commanders, i should say, were former generals under saddam hussein, preinvasion. When you look at that, in a way, has the u. S. Created this problem itself . What do you think . It is an aftermath of the strategy undertaken many, many years ago. Its only part of it. This is a very the ideology of the global jihad is attracting a lot of people in from western europe. And the fact of the matter is that they do have military training. But the fact of the matter is also that theyve got a lot of their weapons because the iraqi army that needs to be rebuilt abandoned them at mosul and ran away from the fight. So we can talk a little bit about a few of the baathist generals being involved in their strategy, involved in tactics. But if we think were going to rely on the iraqi army to muscle up and make a real difference in the immediate future, i think its somewhat elusive. The kurds arent coming out of their bubble. Its going to take a long time to deal with the Syrian Free Army. A quick final word from you . We are going to have to iraq was stable in 2008, 2009, 2010. It is not stable now because of what happened in syria and because of some bad decisions by Prime Minister maliki. The elements of getting this back on track under the new unity government there, it needs intelligence, training, air strikes and it is going to require u. S. Special forces on the ground to knit these forces up that tom ridge was talking about. And thats going to be the next decision for the president. Well see when that comes and what his decision is. Steven hadley, thank you so much. And former secretary of Homeland Security department, tom ridge. Thank you. Good to see both of you. Thank you so much. Coming up, no ransom allowed. The mother of murdered isis hostage jim foley tells cnn that she was warned of criminal charges if she tried to raise money to free her son. And after incidents like this, a new move to reduce tensions in ferguson, missouri, may instead be raising tensions. Youre in the situation room. On my journey across america, ive learned that when you ask someone in texas if they want big savings on Car I