With jerome of afc. Mr. President , 129 people were killed friday night. Isil gained responsibility for the massacre sending the message. Equation on security change. Keep in mind what we have to do. We have a military strategy that involves putting enormous pressure on isil through air strikes that has put assistance and training on the ground with iraqi forces and were now working are Syrian Forces as well to squeeze isil and cut off supply lines. Weve been working to reduce their financing capabilities, the oil that theyre trying to ship outside. Were taking strikes against high value targets including most recently against the individual who was on the video executing civilians who had already been captured as well as libya. Its not just iraq and syria. So on the military front we are continuing to accelerate what we do as we find additional partners on the ground that are effective we work with them more closely. Ive already authorized Additional Special forces on the ground so were going to be able to improve that coordination. On the Counter Terrorism front, keep in mind since i came into office we have been worried about these kinds of attacks. The individual lens that the United States government maintains and the cooperation that were consistently expanding with our european and other partners in going after every single terrorist network is row bust and constant. And every few weeks i meet with my entire National Security team and we go over every single threat string thats presented and where we have all that information we shared immediately with our counter parts around the world including our European Partners. On aviation security, we have over the last several years been working so that at various airport sites, not just in the United States but overseas, we are strengthening our mechanisms to screen and discover passengers who should not be boarding flights and improving the matters in which we are screening luggage that is going on board. And on the diplomatic front weve been consistently working to try to get all the parties together to recognize that there is a moderate opposition inside of syria that could form the basis for a transition government and to reach out not only to our friends but also to the russians and the a yan canadians on the other side of the equation to explain to them ultimately, an organization like isil is the greatest danger to them as well as to us. So there will be an intensification of the strategy that we put forward but the strate strategy we are putting forward is the strategy thats going to work. As i said from the start, its going to take time and whats been interesting is in the aftermath of paris as i listen to those who suggest Something Else needs to be done, typically, the inthings they suggest needs to be done are the things we need to be doing. The one exception is that there had been a few who suggested we should put large numbers of u. S. Troops on the ground and keep in mind that we have the finest military in the world and the finest military minds in the world. Ive been meeting with them intensively for years now discussing these various options and it is not just my view but the view of my closest military and civilian advisers that would be a mistake. Not because our military could not march into mosil or rocca or ramadi and temp clear out isil but because we would see a repetition of what weve seen before which is if you do not have local populations that are committed to inclusive governments and who are pushing back against idea logical extremes that they resurface unless were prepared to have a permanent occupation of these countries. Lets assume that we were to send 50,000 troops into syria. What happens when theres a terrorist attack generated from yemen . Do we then send more troops into there or libya, perhaps . Or if theres a terrorist network thats operating anywhere else in north africa or in southeast asia. So a strategy has to be one that can be sustained and the strategy that were pursuing which focuses on going after targets, limiting wherefore possible the capabilities of isil on the ground systematically going after their leadership, infrastructure, strengthening shia or syrian and iraqi forces and curdish forces to fight them and cutting off the boarders and squeezing the space they can operate until were able to defeat them, thats the strategy were going to have to pursue. Well continue to generate more partners for that strategy and there are going to be some things we try that dont work, some strategies we try do work. When we find strategies that work well double down on those. Cbs. Thank you mr. President. More than a yearlong Bombing Campaign in iraq and syria has failed to contain the ambition and ability of isis to launch attacks in the west. Have you underestimated their abilities and will you widen the rules of engagement for u. S. Forces to take more aggressive action . No, we havent underestimated our abilities. This is precisely why were in iraq as we speak and operating in syria as we speak. Its precisely why we have mobilized 65 countries to go after isil and why i hosted at the United Nations an entire discussion of Counter Terrorism strategies and cushing the flow of foreign fighters and why weve been putting pressure on those countries that have not been as robust as they need to in tracking the flow of foreign fighters in and out of syria and iraq. So there has been an acute awareness on the part of my administration from the start that it is possible for an organization like isil that has such a twisted ideology and has shown such extraordinary brutality and complete disregard for innocent lives that they would have the capabilities to potentially strike in the west and because thousands of fighters have flowed from the west and are european citizens, a few hundred from the United States but far more from europe that when those foreign fighters returned, it posed a significant danger. We have consist presideently woh our European Partners disrupting plots in some cases. Sadly, this one was not disrupted in time. But understand that one of the challenges we have in this situation is if you have a hand full of people who dont mind dying, they can kill a lot of people. Thats one of the challenges of terrorism. Its not their sophistication or the particular weaponry they possess but the ideology that they carry with them and their willingness to die. In those circumstances tracking each individual making sure that we are disrupting and preventing these attacks is a constant effort of individual levigila o. What we do in iraq and syria makes it more attractive the groups. When i said were containing the control in iraq and syria, theyre controlling more territory than last year. The more we shrink that territory, the more we can predend theyre a functioning state and the more it becomes apparent they are simply a network of killers who are brutalizing local populations. That allows us to reduce the foreign fighters which will over a time lesson the number of terrorists who can carry out the terrible attacks like in paris. Thats what we did with al qaeda. That doesnt mean by the way that al qaeda no longer possesses the capabilities of striking the west. Al qaeda and the peninsula that operates primarily in yemen, we know has consistently tried to target the west and we are working to disrupt those acts but despite the fact that they have not gotten as much attention as isil, they pose a danger as well. So our goals here consistently have to be to be aggressive and to leave no stone unturned but also recognize this is not conventional warfare. We play into the isil narrative when we act as if theyre a state. And we use routine military tactics that are designed to fight a state that is attacks another state. Thats not whats going on here. These are killers with fantasies of glory who are very savvy when it comes to social media and are able to infiltrate the minds of not just iraqis or syrians but diseffected individuals around the world and when they activate those individuals, those individuals can do a lot of damage. So we have to take the approach of being rigorous on our Counter Terrorism efforts and consistently improve and figure out how we can get more information and how we can infiltrate these networks and rekus their operational space even as we also try to shrink the amount of territory. Ultimately, to reclaim territory from them is going to require an end of the war. Its going to require an Effective Iraqi effort that brinls the differences which is why our diplomatic efforts inside of iraq are so important as well. Thank you, mr. President. In the days and weeks before the paris attack, did you receive warning in our daily intelligence briefing that an attack was imnant . If not, does that not call into question the assessment theres no credible threat to the United States today. Secondly, if i could ask you to address your critics who say youre reluctant to enter another middle east war and your preface of diploma preface of diplomacy to use our military. Jim, every day we have threat streams coming through the intelligence transit. As i said, every several weeks we sit down with all my National Security intelligence and military teams to discuss various threat streams that may be generated. And the concerns about potential isil attacks in the west have been there for over a year now and come through periodically. There were no specific mentions of this particular attack that would give us a sense of something that we need, that we could provide sensitivity on or act on ourselves. But typically, the way the intelligence works is there will be a threat stream that is from one source. How reliable is that source . Perhaps some signal intelligence gets picked up. Its evaluated. Some of it is extraordinarily vague and unspecific. Theres no clear timetable. Some of it maybe more specific and folks chase down that threat to see what happens. Im not aware of anything that was specific in the sense that would have gave a premonition about an attack in paris that would allow for Law Enforcement or military actions to disrupt it. With respect to the broader issue of my critics, to some degree i answered the question earlier. I think that when you listen to what they actually have to say, what theyre proposing, most of the time when pressed they describe things that were already doing. Maybe theyre not aware were already doing them. Some of them seem to think that if i were just more bellicose in expressing what were doing that that would make a difference because that seems to be the only thing theyre doing is talking as if theyre tough. I am seeing particular strategies that they would suggest that would make a real difference. The primary exception is if those who would deploy u. S. Troops on a large scale to retake territory either in iraq or now in syria and at least they have their honesty to go ahead and say thats what they would do. I just addressed why i think theyre wrong. There have been some who are well meaning and i dont doubt their sincerity when it comes to the issue of the dyer humanitarian situation in syria who will for example call for a no fly zone or safe zone of some sort and this is an example of the kind of issue where i will sit down with our top military and intelligence advisers and well pain stakingly go through what does Something Like that look like and typically, after weve gone through a lot of planning and a lot of discussion and really working it through, it is determined it would be counter productive to take those steps. In part because isil does not have planes so the attacks are on the ground. A true safe zone requires us to set up ground operations and you know, the bulk of the deaths that occurred in syria, for example, come about not because of regime bombings but because of on the ground casualties. Who would come in and out of the safe zone, how would it work . Would it become a magnet for further terrorist attacks and how many personnel would be required . My only interest is to end suffering and keep the American People safe. If theres a good idea out there, then were going to do it. I dont think ive shown hesitation to react whether its ben laden or acceptedisending a troops. What we do not do, what i do not do is to take actions either because its going to work politically or it is going to somehow in the abstract make america look tough. Or make me look tough. Part of the reason is every few months i go to walter reed and see a 25yearold kid thats paralyzed or lost him limbs and some of those are people ive ordered into battle so i cant afford to play some of the political games that others may. Well do whats required to keep the American People safe. And i think its entirely appropriate in a democracy to have a serious debate about these issues. Folks want to pop off and have opinions about what they think they would do, present a specific plan. If they think that somehow their advisers are better than the chair of my joint chiefs of staff and the folks actually on the ground, i want to meet them. We can have that debate. What im not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American Leadership or america winning or whatever other slogans they come up with that has no relationship to what is actually going to work to protect the American People and to protect people in the region who are getting killed and to protect our allies and people like france. Im too busy for that. Jim. Thank you very much, mr. President. I wanted to go back to something you said to margaret earlier when you said you had not underestimated isis abilities. This is an organization you once tribed described as a jv team thats evolved to forces in iraq and syria and able to use the safe haven to launch attacks in the other parts of the world. How is that not underestimating their capabilities and how is that contained quiet frankly and i think a lot of americans have frustration that they see the United States has the best military in the world and has the backing of others when it comes to taking on isis. I guess the question is forgive the language, why cant we take out these bastards . I just spent the last three questions answering that very question. I dont know what more you want me to add . I think ive described very specifically what our strategy is and ive described very specifically why we do not pursue some of the other strategies thats been suggested. This is not as i said a traditi traditional military opponent. We can retake territory and as long as we leave our troops there, we can hold it. But that does not solve the underlying problem of eliminating that dynamic producing these kinds of violent extremist groups. And so we are going to continue to pursue the strategy that has the best chance of working even though it does not offer the sas satisfaction i guess of any headline or an immediate resolution. Part of the reason is because theres cost to the other side. I just want to remind people this is not an abstraction. When we send troops in, those troops get injured and killed and our country spends hundreds of billions of dollars. Again the fact there are enormous sacrifices involved in any military action, its best that we dont shoot first and aim late erp. Its important to get the strategy right and the strategy were pursuing is the right one. I think a lot of people around the world and america are concerned because given the strategy that youre pursuing and its been more than a year now, isis capability seems to be expanding. Are you concerned and do you think they have the same ability to strike in the United States . Do you think given all youve learned about isis over the past year or so and given all the criticism about your underestimating them, do you think you really understand this enemy well enough to defeat them and to protect the homeland . All right. So this is another variation on the same question. I guess, let me try it one last time. The, we have been fully aware of the capability of them carrying out a terrorist attack. Thats why we have been mounting a very aggressive strategy to go after them. As i said before when youre talking about the ability of a hand full of people with not wildly sophisticated military equipment weapons they can kill a lot of people and preventing them from doing so is challenging for every country. I assure you that not just the United States but france and turkey and others who have been subject to these terrorist attacks would have implemented those strategies. They set up a whole series of additional steps to protect aviation and apply lessons learned. Weve seen much better cooperation between the fbi, state governments, local governments. This is some advantages to geography with respect to the United States. But having said that, the possibility of terrorist attacks on our soil. There were the Boston Marathon bombers. It was not on the scale of the deaths in paris but that was a serious attempt at killing a lot of people by two brothers and a crock pot. It gives you some sense of the kinds of challenges that are going to be involved in this going forward. So again, isil has serious capabilities. Were going after all of them. They have a great effect on social media to attract groups and carry out attacks in the homeland and in europe and other parts of the world. Our ability to shrink the space they operate in which will reduce the freedom with which they feel they can operate. I can hear you. [ inaudible ] im sorry, i cant hear you. This is something we spoke a lot about in the g20. The overwhelming majority of victims are themselves muslims. Isil does not represent islam. It is not representative in any way of the attitudes of the overwhelming majority of luz minimums. This is something emphasized by Muslim Leaders whether its the president of incountries that a majority muslim but have shown themselves to be ral rant and do work to be inclusive in their political process. So to the degree that anyone would equate the terrible accident that took place in paris with the abuse of islam, those kinds of stereo types are counterproduct eviden counterproductive and wrong. They will lead, i