Transcripts For CSPAN2 Hearing On U.S. Military Mission In Afghanistan 20240711

Call the committee to order. The fullommittee hearing on Us Military Mission in afghanistan and the implications of the Peace Process with us involvement. We are doing ts hearing both with some members present and some members remote. We have witnesses that wilbe remote. This the first time we been back for a full Committee Meeting since the covid outbreak so i urge all of you participating and watching to make sure your patnt as we get the bugs out. Before w start the basic rules and outlines of how were doing this hearing i work of the memberwho join us remotely they are reminded they mt be visible on screen within the Software Platform for identityhin verificatn to establish and maintain a quorum and participate in voting. Members participating remotely must use the Software Platform video function while attending the proceeding must they experience connectivity issues that renders the member unable to fully participate on camera if a member has technical difficulties please Contact Committee staff when recognizedec remote participation will be broadcasted in the room for the internet feed members participating remotely are asked to mute the microphone were not speaking they will be recognized normally for asking questions but if they want to speak at another time they must seek recognition verbally in all cases they are reminded to unmute the microphone prior to speaking member should be aware the slight lag of a few seconds before you speak in the camera switching to you. Members are reminded to keep the Software Platform video function on the entire time ify attend the proceeding members depart for sure. Other than joining a different proceeding they should be the video function on if members are absent for a significant period or depart for a different proceeding we should exit entirely and we join if they return. Members are also designate on advisedph to mute the microphone to cancel any background noise members may use the ship black one the platform for statistical issues and finally you should see a fiveminute countdown clock but if necessary i will remind members whether time is up. I was jokingg before this is like trying to launch the space shuttle. Its not quite that bad but there is a lot more technical stuff involved than usual. The purpose is incredibly blportant and very timely and we are lucky to have three outstanding Witnesses Today. The honorable crocker appearing remotely, clear ambassador the Us Foreign Service nonresident senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment and a former ambassador to afghanistan professor of intertional Public Affairs at columbia univerty and i joked senior counsel formulations director of transnational and Senior International program for international studies. Its about 19 years ago we went to afghanistan after just being attacked on september 11 and a credit half out of afghanistan to make sure that never happensag again. And i think that continues to be the top mission we face a threat from transnational terrorist groups and how best to contain it for all the problems and trial problems and difficulties that we had that mission has been successful we have not had a transnational terrorist staff in the us and when we think about all the men and women who served in the military and lost their lives and those who suffered because of this all the state Department Personnel and all the aid workers and allies and partners, keep the night on just keep my not just United States nato and others haveve participated and that has been successful and should not be taken for granted. When we go frommwh t here . While that has been successful there has been a great cost as mentionedd in terms of lives lost were injured in many as well so how do we move forward . We continue to maintain the mission to stop transnational terrorist threat some of the other costs associated is the fact it is disruptive to have foreign troops in a country because we look to contain the terrorist threat working to stop the spread of the toxic ideology the presence of us troops in Foreign Countries is one of those things we cannot deny. If you are in your own town and a foreign troops came rolling through town telling you what you had to do it would not make you feel good about that foreign country would be in a better place if we did not to have our troops in Foreign Countries i think we should never forget that. The other aspect of the missiondi is in addition to transnational terrorist threats it has morphed to bring peace and stability to afghanistan there is a clear reason to that principle is stopping transnational terrorist threats we have learned that ungoverned spacesed make it easier for these terrorist groups to take root and south asia is a place where there is a lot of ideological chances to take advantage so if afghan and one of afghanistan continues will be back where we were with 9 11. I think thats quick a guarantee is some argue that we will not impose piece on afghanistan and to bring a coalition together with corruption and confidence outside forces will not bring peace to afghanistan. One way or the other they will have to make that choice. When we look at afghanistan and theres something we can do to make that different we can ultimately solve the problem c so it seems to me the common sense thing to do is to have the absolute minimum presence required to meet our goal to stop that transnational terrorist threat. I happen to believe we need to draw down because of the cost and the impact its clear we cannot impose piece upon afghanistan. There are a lot of different ways to contain troublesome regions to impose the transnationally threats we have an enormous amount of experienceie whether talking about libya or yemen or somalia or countries in west africa the disruptions present gave instability of violent extremist groups and inesf some cases with the partners in a variety of different ways to contain the threat it doesnt require thousands of us troops in my hope today is witnesses can give us guidance to go forward how to contain the threat coming out of afghanistan and south asia moreta broadly while minimizing the risk and crucially minimizing that disruptive effect the presence of us troops on foreign soil have ever propaganda t that requires this ideological terrorism how do you balance all of that . The president just made his announcement hes pulling out 2500ro troops it is crucial we work with our partners whatever our plans are. It is a crucial moment as we decide our future in afghanistan. Nobody wants to be there foreve forever. Warsnnot have forever and one for the last one day done for the wrong reasons and not necessary is completely and totally wrong. On the other hand if youre going to war i never imagined myself wanting to quote Lindsey Graham but if he said he may be tired of fighting isys but theyre not tired of fighting you thats an important thing to think about how we contain these threats to minimize the rest the risk in the impact of how we do that. With that i turn it over to the Ranking Member foris statements. Thank you mr. Chairman. It is goodo be back in the Armed Services Committee Home because this may well be the last hearing of t session of congress i want to take a ment and just express appreciationpr to you staff for the way u have dealt with incredibly challenging circumstances under covid and yet we have pressed ahead withh hearings and having the bill passed t overwhelmingly in the senate so the business has continued despite of the challenges a that is no small small measure do with all the technical challenges that we face a i appreciate it. This is an important top topic with the military and nationall securi apparatuses more focused on gat power coetition but the terrorist threat has not gone away. It is one of the challenges of our time that we have to worryut about the wide range of threats. The other ing i want to emphasize, which you mentioned and maybe we dont say it enough, is that whent comes to National Security, its ha to prove what did not happen. And in the case of aricans who f have fought and some died, to pvent a repeat, or rse of 9 11, it is very impoant for those who participated in family members whlost loved ones to know that it has been the last years has seen farther one far greater success than i have ever expected from september 11, ec2011. 01. Nothing on the scale of 9 11 ande know the classified briefings and so far worse the appropriate appreciation to the military but also the Intelligence Community of Law Enforcement to help prevent that what we need to say and recognize more oen. Its very important to have this hearing and i should say by the wayhe hearing on afghanistan has been on our agenda for months. But ithsbu turns out it is a timely hearing today and the goal all of us had is for the afghans to handle their security with the transnational threat i did not believe they are there yet and i look forward to hearing from them with the unilateral withdrawal and wh the Incoming Biden Administration with the afghan a a broader situation i look forward to hearing from them and appreciate their participation. I yield back. The first witness the honorable crocker just promote good one he was joining us remotely you are recognize. Thank you mr. Chairman and Ranking Member thornberry. Can you hear me . Yes. Loud and clear. I would know i come to you this morning from the great state of washington that zero dark 30 i approve of that and i wish i was there as well. You in the Ranking Member ha summarized very well the central question as a nation after 19re years pretty basic and pretty crual that nothing again er comes out of ahanistan. After two dades its important and to remind ourselves after 11 the taliban was givenou a choice we are enjoying aafe haven in afghanistan. Will not take military action or they could stand pat and they cse the latter. For almost t decades. So when the taliban sees the end end things the opportunity to return to control. I have the privilegef opening the embassy in afghanistan 200 what i saw was the utter devastation and then immediately awe of the profound damage to decades of nflict has done to the afghanan people. Especily with women and girls in afghanist. And then totl move swiftly to repair the damage to the Human Capital as well as the physical. We opened goal schools right away. The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and took him to visit a girls school at the First Grade Class with girls ranging from agsix to 12. The 12 yearold came of schoolage. So i saw a unique a opportunity here as the committee knoso well. With the national valu and National Security agenda. And with our vals and her interest to dictate we be prent that we ensure the taliban and d not return the alli on the best way to do that so in 2002 and afghan schools as ambassador a decade lar and when i ended that post 8 Million Students and 35 percent were girls over the long run it is the Afghan People here have to make peace with the educated population and then to play the role they deserve in the momentous decisions. And a strategic patience and king us engagements. But this was launched almt two years ago and we agreed to a longstanding taliban demand but t with the Afghan Government in the room so with the Peace Process these are surrender talks waving a white flag basically saying to the tele band you win we lose do this as best we can Early Morning the terrorist peace talks with vietnam to push that parallel too hard and too far and in vietnam the vietcong the north vietnamese attacks the homeland al qaeda did attack the homeland from afghanistan hosted by the tele band they have not become kinder and gentler in the intervening years. Im afraid to say it is folly to make a safer order to uphold the core values. And then we heard from the secretarygeneral expressing his concern and to cut in half already the small number of troops we have in afghanistan. I commend you for holding this hearing. And then to minimize the cost and human losse. Part of a working group particular by the rockefellers counsel to do just that b we have to show the strategic patience that we need to face down a determined enemy. I like to take just a moment on another special a group of individuals that ha sacrificed a great deal for us. Those are our i interpreters and other afghan individuals who thought the mission in that country and he rently received a letter from senators shaheen and worker asking about the necessary steps and the immediate families. There is a backlog of almost 18000 casesnd these are individuals that are under a more serious risk and a group dedicated to bring the interpreters here to safet with 300 individuals and interpreters have been killed waiting for the visa that we promised and how delivered slowly and in disappointingly small numbers. And urging the committee to do the right thinthat we promised to bring these brave people home, their new home. And with the own core values we can be grateful and the wod is watching to see i commend this committee for its suppt for the special immigrant visa program and i urge you take the steps to see these people can lea danger behind they earned it thank youu mr. Chairman. Coming to us remotely doctor you are recognized for your opening remarks. I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity for the important choices it faces. Also its an honor to be part of a panel to colagues i have respected and aired. And to summarize the key part for my written submission but that was prior to todays announcement of the 50 percent reduction of troop strength in afghanistan. And with the opening comments chiefly to respond to the nouncement and thoughts on where us policy should go from here. So any other aspect is that in my view the policy announced s a mistake i suspect like all of us we would like to see the troopsome home but when and how . It seems a progressive and incremental withdrawal in my view is the worst of three possible options before us. Total withdrawal no withdrawal without a negotiated settlement and the announced policy of partial unilateral drawdowns and as i argue in my submission the interest are best served by nfurther withdrawals without a settlement to end the war. We should maintain the current troop level for the political value is bargaining leverage with the ongoi talks between the Afghan Government and the tele band and that we should be prepared to witraw those and thetoirely get such concessions from the negotiations. Premis on my hope it is achievable with that leverage carefully. Is much as the troop presence in my own viewnd do not give this away unrequited. The reasonable case can be made the prognosis for successful negotiation is soo poor this is this but this is apo reasonable position the implation would be total withdrawal and more expensive during the 2009 but to sacrifice all the same and they cannot maintain the current stalemate and definitely even if we maintain the small us psence. The battlefield situation that is a stalemate and that the Afghan Government will eventuly lose unless the trends reverse. Doctor you went silent on us. I apologize for that. Sorry. You are back. Some argue i am better went silent but i think the committees purposes are better served. You are back to go ahead. [laughter] the point i was making i assume that i went silent is that it became a military stalemate if nothing changes we will eventually lose the war. And with that implies is that in the long run it is either eventual defeat or some kind of negotiated settlement but if that settlement isea impossible and then better served and then to lose more expensively and then to prolong the process of failure andth cost. And instead what the administration announced on tuesday a more expensive version of failure whatever but i think several the prognosis it goes down every time we announce partial withdrawals. We have to achieve remaining sources of leverage the promise of federal one of aid in the troop presence the taliban wants us out this is among the most consistent and off expressed names in the negotiation where we are radically leveraged for troop withdrawal is a crucial bargaining chip and in fact the political is now in my view the most important contribution us forces make to the war. Us airstrikes in particular to enable our afghan allies to maintain a stalemate. And in my view the most important contribution they make their when we gradually draw down the true present to reduce the leverage available from the trooper presence to negotiate relatively favorable terms for the talks. And then encourage the taliban to freeze the talks. And when they keep giving away with a want for free . Stepbystep and every time we reduce for the Afghan Security forces and those that might break under the strain of reduce support. And then that gives them for their incentive to wait to see if the opposition on the battlefield could melt away. Even the Afghan Security forces dont break altogether and then with the faster expansion of territorial population control and then further in the tele bands direction reducing the scale of concessions and then with the real bargaining incremental withdrawal. And that prognosis i believe the potential bargaining space bar negotiatednt settlement with the afghan allies and for the outright defeat but if we reduce the bargaining space women to suspend further drawdowns but then if one disagrees of the men that just makes it more expensive. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. So i thank you chairman smith and Ranking Member thornberry bothn person and virtually for the opportunity to testify before the house Armed Services committee on a critically important subject military mission in afghanistan and the implications of a Peace Process. With those iroductory remarks first us objectives not just in get the same it more broadly and secondonhe state of peace settlement discussions in the war and the taliban itself to summarize wi brief conclusions. Let me just begin by ning including doctor mitchell and its not optimal it is suboptal and dnot have a range of goo options its worth noting that. And the further withdraw of us forces would likely continue to shift the Balance Power at the military campaign other militant groups and the outside supports pakistan and iran and russia and outside actors. Thee drawdown will have an impact on the us ability to train and advise and assist Afghan National defense Security Forces and a group which we should all remember with the Extremist Organization committed to establishing Islamic Emirates in the country and what we have to grapple with in the end is that what i want to leave behind in afghanistan . The first section us interest there isth noe question we head both from chairman smith and the Ranking Membernb thornberry. And in 2001 there other important objectives overseas including competition with the rising china and aggressive russia also implications of covid. The us does have some interest in afghanistan and south asia is a region to remind everyone has three of the major competitors it has the chinese on the border, iranians on the border and the russians very close by as we a scene with news reports this year they continue to have a relationship with the tele band including a lethal relationship. Al qaeda continues to be active in afghanistan the numbers are relatively small but i would urge anybody who is not seen it the series of un assessments including the summer that continue to know the tele band retains close links with senior and lowerlevel Al Qaeda Leaders particularly ones associated with the subcontinent the local affiliate as the report concluded the relations between the tele band come i am quoting especially the hot connie network and al qaeda remain close with a history of shared struggle and intermarriage and also continue to see activity from the Islamic State local affiliates also broader strategic to be aware of with regional balance of power competition between indians and pakistan both of which are Nuclear Armed and we have to be mindful of a potential humanitarian crisis if we were to lead afghanistan has the secondlargest refugee population in the world at the moment with two. 5 million a withdrawal would likely significantly worse in the prospect. Moving to the peace talks weve heard other witnesses remark along these lines. The taliban in the Afghan Government they sign an agreement to be a first step negotiation but the Peace Process that it has never really begun meaningful. So what we have right now is tele band advances data to suggest the taliban attacks are at the highest levels of the war and then continue to fight. And this goes back to the announcement and then because of the peace talks in spite of them the west did not coordinate those operating in the country and that is worth noting they stood with us committed to article five on nato to send forces after that so other countries that have sent advisers and diplomats and Intelligence Officers and also a withdrawal has the impact on the intelligence collection and other capabilities particularly from cia and the National Security agency as we withdraw forces. Will be increasingly blind to what is happening in the country. Moving for the us goal should be to have political consensus in afghanistan to support peace talks with the overthrow the Afghan Government thank you very much i look forward to your questions. A couple housekeeping items will have votes here shortly one of the advantages of the covid voting over an extended period of time and it is my intention that we continue the hearing and stagger when we go so we can have members here asking questions i will have someone sitting in forri me second gettingme into q a its really helpful if you direct your questions to one specific witness o. You will have a hard time getting through a fiveminute window if we are bouncing all over the place remotely. Toward that end, let me start with you doctor, jones. We can get up because all the bad things that would happen. And why is there so much pressure for us to get out . Number one there is a strong feeling amongst a lot of people that no matter the scenario with will be a successful Peace Process the level best we can hope for to maintain her oc presence in the idea to defeat the taliban and to have a stable government most people think is insane i would say off the top of my head have to bet one way or thewo other that the chaos would continue and were in the middle of that chaos we are not in the middle as we were before money is still being spent and the American People said for what . Because gosh if we just hang in for another year or two or another 5000 troops i dont think anybody believes that. T a serious way. We are not going to get there. So a slightly different flavor of chaos in the minds of most people so we protect lives and save money trading one type of chaos for another and thats a win. What if we have another al qaeda situation as often as the tele band is do you really think at this point if the tele band came back into power they do not get along. Do we think will do anything approaching the transnational terrorist threat that we have mistakenly didnt see back before 9 11 . I think that same type of threat will be there in the final point is i get our partners i was all over the Trump Administration what happened in syria as a lot of people in this committeemp were this is not what happened this time. This is been going on for monthsoi we had a disagreement with our allies and we said sorryy i get the outline point but they are at a different point from us but the question is that if we are hanging out more chaos will result. Do we really face a significant transnional threat at that point . Thank you very much for the questions you hit on the most important queions the us an americanopulation need to think through. My resnses severalfold. And 37 percent of these cases the governor on the en battlefield andhe peace settlement so just to be clear it means about two thirds of the cases ther a government win or a peace settlement i loing at the odds would look for in afghanistan that is like the guy who drowned walking across the river with the average depth of 3 feet. This is whats going on right now and will get afghanistan where we will fall. Areas for much of the last 20 years in afghanistan and i would say if i am a betting person right now those are the odds i would be looking for in the foreseeable future the us has been successful with severely weakening al qaeda and a number of Senior Leaders and most importantly the recent killing of Al Qaeda Leaders of afghann forces supported by us forces and what we are seeing is some successes and they still need us help to make progress but what has me concerned that us pulls out of iraq and the situation deteriorated significantly. The upside is we had an ally to push the forces back in afghanistan, we would have an enemy in kabul. The ability to come back in a meaningful way is much more significant and what worries me is a number of militant groups operating in me capacity in afghanistan today not just al qaeda and in mumbai still persist so i cant say they would get as bad as they were on 9 11 and beth the trajectory is what im concerned about. There enough. Doctor, you had made the point that basically all or nothing you still have to draw down over a certain amount of time and be safe but the other point if you could give me something written but it used to be on the screenn but i have heard the argument the 2500 troops is a sufficient Counterterrorism Force the 2500 number performs exactly the mission and then the terrorist groups at bay. And then with the cte standpoin standpoint. This eachf you and ambassador crocker but the question is if you had one minute t speak with the president elect on what he should do in afghastan what would you tell him . Ambassador crocker one minute with the president elect on afghanian what would your message be . With t strategic fors where we are at president trumps and then to reassess we cannot and then the strategic and with those values. We did have some connection issues there that made a hard for me to understand everything you are saying. We can work on the. Connection when or provide that in writing when we are done. The longterm outbreaks are outbreak defeat or negotiate a compromise settlement and to understand the troop level in that light and then to dont partially withdrawal withdrawal without compensating if you think the negotiations are hopeless that strategy in that scenario and to cut our losses and get all together. Would you go back up to 4500 because you believe there is a chance of negotiation. That word be politically sustainable is beyond my expertise but the compromise settlement and that is extremely small they are limited with the cost of continuing to pursue a settlement that are fairlyy modest in the west interest to do ourur best to get out of this with a dob can live with. Hank you doctor john. To follow on what my two lleagues noted, three things. I would not go down any further. I word ask of the us commanding general and afghanistan the chairman of joint chiefs off staff on the 4500 we need more just a counterterrorism for training or adve or assistance and that is an analytical judgment fr the Senior Military Leadership we do need to show commitment to the Afghan Government some of this is a potical commitment to remain an ally against and then to tell the tele band one ofta the major bgaining chips and they would not come wn without a peace settlement. Those are my three e issues. I will continue with the questions this is always difficult for me spe the last 15 years traveling to ghanistan and deployed moms and over the course of that time we witness the progress of women who it started businesses or served in, parliamentnt ands ambassador crocker said we share that we have their back and ambassar i know your respoe from doctor jones and where that analysishe falls and whats the role of congress . Can that be helpful or no longer helpful . My other o concern is about talking out the cllenges of society is thereny hope for that that anybody should trust thats possible . Gin that, where do we go . Is there any kind of plan b that actually iorporates that concern . We haventpoken much about isys. Ani think we know former tele band fighters would be looking for another grp to take up arms with and despite the fact they dont have any feelings for one another so why dont you start. Thank you very much. All of these are important issues. That comes out today from the cpc sentinel and one of the things it notes with the tele band execution of women is deeply troubling women have beenis victims victims of violence have little recourse to justice and tele band courts it continues to discourage women from working with denies women access to modern healthcare or from participating in politics. And supports punishment against women such as stoning and publicicwo lashing. I think congress has a very Important Role to keep this as a front burnerll issue. Afghanistan does have conservative elements of society with a broader debate entirelye want to put. Our values on afghanistan but what we have seen is major progress over the past 20 years and the takeover could eliminate that virtually and immediately. We do have examples of tele band leaders into the government and to highlight the concerns of the Islamic State and to provide an opportunity to re generate. And the ethnic minorities are an important value. And to try hard to build the new country but if we want to realize the these values to make an invtment commensurate requiring a military iestment on our part sufficient to have the tele band but the dilemma that we face is that we hav interest we care about because we are stuckn this unfortunate situation to look atotential compromise what we care about to some degr given the limits and the scale andhe mitary investmentf given that the only way to square that is through the negotiatingoc process. With respect to the tele ban band, obviously they are not the ideal negotiating partner. Is my responsibility to keep this going as much as i would love to hear you speak. Mr. Connelly your next. The tele band of the nineties is different from the tele band of today and all forms that disagree with the tele band and to be persecuted and to make these decisions and in America Today with the rise of smaller groups of individuals or larger groups there is a real conflict with ourselves to bear responsibility with the expectations for those going up the post tele band era they didnt live under the tele band so those expectations are different and are they strong to lead the nation with the tele band take over that word happen if they could lead themselves out if they are Strong Enough to move forward . Doctor jones . I would say without broader International Assistance they are not. And was support with the Financial Support the europeans of actually provided a fair amount of assistance i dosi think the Afghan Government and the population is able to do what you are outlining it will take time but in Public Opinion polls that the population supports the kind of a vision and does not support the tele band extremist. So in response to your first comment i do think that the tele band has modified the views on a few issues. They appear to allow some girls to go to school in terms of ideology same kind of emirate they try to establish. I hope you can hear me now i will associate myself i do not see this with the experience that we have had when i was ambassador toto afghanistan were not facing defeat on the battlefield is true all wars must and in return to the political process that they are surrendering to ossetians i hope the president elect when he becomes president will freeze them not cancel them out but as my colleagues have suggested until the tele be until you live up to youside of the deaeal. Doctor is it fair to say the te band is getting significant outside help in the Afghan Government because they got substantial sport from pakistanis and others and Economic Activity for a very long time. The is very good reason to believe that outside assistance the enough Afghan National surity forces would break up and we would get a chance to find out what chaos presents is not social science experiment i would like toex run. But its importa to note the majority moneyat required comes from outside. The operating budget annually is more than twice the revenue of the afghan governmt wiout outside support were to stop the ability to sustain a stalemate would go away quickly. I yield back. Thank you madam chair. Can you hear me . Yes. So if we say they are chaos with one chaos or another and with 9 11 so i was to answer the question in the right way whether it is al qaeda and plotting against us. And then to know enough and that to be a bold threat to america and the allies. Thank you. Very good questions. On the chairmans diussion, my response is essentially i wouldnt characterize now there is a war but for you to withdraw it would significantly worsen. That the tele band controls not a single major city right now so to compare that to iraq and syria with falluja and when body anduzzlene most all a i think its worth noting that wou change i think in my assessment is th would change with us withdrawal. How we know that becomes a lot more difficult as you notedffic the us wod have some intelligence collection capabilities but it would be much more difficult to understand whaal qaeda was doing or what the tele band foother militant groups taliban are doing with t militaryry cia presence in the countr. I agree with that. , ambassador crocker, the us taliban agreement including al qaeda from using afghan with the United States and itss allies. Thank you for the excellent question. The taban has no intention and no need to say what they want to hear so to tell them all they need to know was to continue our support and presence. That they are serious about this if they dont live up to the basic commitment then we are not going away. If there is a single phrase that the taliban and al qaeda have that strategic patients that we do have the will to have circumstances in afghanistan to have that resolve. Thank you very much i yield back. Thank you mr. Byrne you are recognized for five minutes. Thank you mr. Chairman. With the expert of my people think that is how we here. That is what the people in america a general think the people of my district are tired of nation building 19 years and thousands of lives lost all thes injuries and hundreds of thousands of lives disrupted with billions and billions of dollars. Enough they are not for nation building anymore ambassador crocker is made a great point about all of that. And then to support a continuing counterterrorism effort. So if you talk about the drawdown what is the right number . Can we have a successful counterterrorism effort versus 5000 troops . That is the 64000dollar question. Maybe 6 the 64 billiondollar question we are well beyond that so what i would say the question that we need to ask the military leadership is 2500 enough to prevent a tele band overthrow for the government . Is not just a counterterrorism issue but also in overthrow of the government. What is 2500 give us close to 4500 thats a question for the joint chiefs and thats where i come back. Its more than juscapturing Al Qaeda Leaders but do we wa to prevent the overthrow of the government and hodo we continue to sustain to support thAfghan Government . Lo is it given the tele band take back over. And theirssessments have been unambiguous they continue to have Strategic Operational and tacticalna levels. And al qaeda senior and i think commanders have been willing to give sanctuary to alaeda leaders. So the answer there is yes this is relation of thee future. What is your opinion doctor . It a mistake to separate counterterrorism if it falls in the tele band take over the terrorism threat is substantially up for american troops with a handful but the security of afghanistans neighbors of a Nuclear Armed pakistan. And the aftermath of government collaps and then to he the actual nuclear weapons. And lets forget all this it is a false dichotomy. We are heavily engaged and then we succeeded then we walked out. And then to be magically different this time. Or the. I apologize beer ti is expired. Yoare recognized for five minutes. And you are providing some good questions and with the presence of american troops higher than and 2500 securing a negotiated settlement with the Afghan Government which is thats what look like how does the government merge into a reconciliation it is important to ask specifically what they look like but at this point with negotiations it is difficult to predict where they mightig go. But in the tele band that have come to the Afghan Government the willingness toarticipate in theit political proce and then to see a compromise on o both sides of power sharing arrangements and k ministry and security services. The taliban and allowed like el salvador or columbia where there was a peace deal and reintegration into the government Security Forces and so some discussion on the afghan constitution s the issue is can we get to a pce where afghan governmt and the taliban can compromise on the issues and get supports om their cstituencies. I have to interrupt you. A short answer would be on here. Yes the nature is that the taliban us to give up precepts to break with al qaeda renounce violence and disarm and accept some variation. Thats a lot to beit possible. And with a political act and to have withdrawal of foreign troops including counterterrorism presence was asked to defend their own borders and then to set aside in the Afghan Government they know they are unpopular offering them to run for election and agree to a deal and over what kind of t set aside . What is the power sharing lookalike but that is the general bargaining space and what that looks like. Ambassador crocker. What is the negotiated settlement . Apparently ambassador crocker is not available. We lost him we will work on that. Go ahead. But the neighborhood is also involved. The most important neighbor is pakistan a Nuclear Armed country fighting a civil w war t that could go badly if it does with the prospects to the government collapsed with the Nuclear State with weapons and militants dont like us anymore than we like them. I should not have asked for 15 seconds. [laughter] i agree pakistan is a imary supporter of the taliban with iran and russia among others. And then to consider the neighborhood and all ofth this. And with the status of the women representative davis we will miss you then to her the stories of what life was like and i am very concerned about that. Now to move on talking about the status of the afghan National Security forces. And then with the with the other witnesses to summarize and you envision a future where the Afghan Security forces are selfsustaining what level of support time o commitment and then with that assistance, should the United States at the International Community continue to provide military and economic assistance to afghanistan into the future . I am on the pessimistic and of the opinion. And we see it is not just in afghanistan but in political settings you have judiciary with the armed elites the government is required to have an internal balance of power they cannot get too strong because it threatens the actors within the elite and usually usually this is the insurgency. And the tools to control the threat the National Military poses with the regime broadly and that is a profound systematic limit on the Afghan Security forces and similar countries elsewhere. I think they are Strong Enough for a stalemate there are 3000 and the country but and then to with plausible levels so usaid moving forward the primary role before a settlement and without the support they cannot dopo that. That is a way to enforce the terms of the settlement it is a critical tool the way that telegram plays a role with the terms of the agreement some kind of necessary nothing like the current scale but a complete shutdown off usaid and use that leverage to enforce the terms. You mention the courts. And with the department of justice and the state department were there with the court system what would you say ishe the statu status . And then to maintain justice can you expand on that quick. And then the ability to enforce adjudication of the armed members of the elite. And then use to maintain this internal balance of power broadly defined is largely beyond the courts and the judicial system to solve when the powerbrokers are accused corruption and evidence is presented the judiciary system as a general rule is unable to enforce its will. And then to see the taliban today not just in the 19 nineties so the area we see the most success on the nationals Security Force and the important lesson in here mays are the best trained andhe consistently traine trained. We do have mr. Crocker back. Thank you chairman its directed the 15th the january to withdraw all the and then the response for the drawdown. In response to the dwdown that is the problem. They know from the start wh the terms of our surrender and everything happeningre since in the eyes of the talan, and we will continue to withdraw th is not a reasonable step. And then the next question and in my opinion bring a terrorist with plausible deniability but in your opinion with true information that is verifble . And th is a relative question. There are two pieces to that the intelligence problem if they are behaving themselvesre w or complying with the terms of whatever agreement we reach the freeze decide they are not complyi but on the intelligence side and that mechanisms for afghans to on oppose the taliban. If we put some sort of settlement, but what is in our interest and willi to support with power sharing that we retain allies in the afghan gernment with an incentive and violations of the agreement by the taliban. And with thegreement was beingnt i violated. Is one of theeasons why this rainy day potential any agreement will be stable. But then to look at the United States with this type ofor attack . With those terrorist organizations the taliban hasnt committed with the province such as kuhn are. But we could expect the taliban to fight this type of organizations so based on the relationship today between the taliban and al qaeda and the Strategic Operational and tactical levels i think we could expect over time that the us National Security interest are threatened based on international and regional terrorist groups operating inra afghanisn including al qaeda. What does that afghanistan look like after the Second World War and then to keep in check. My answer to that but there is a Peace Agreement for Something Else that my judgment would be a continuing us military presence that is able to fight and weaken these organizaons. I yield back. Doctor jones the Mount Division which is the most of the us from afghanistan currently headquartered First Brigade Combat Team in afghanistan with the second brigade scheduled throughout this fall want to wish our soldiers a very happy thanksgiving they are away from their friends and familyaw at home. Given you experience, how can we balance the production of forces with the Necessary Force Protection Measures to ensure the troops in country are protected and ably on able to safely conduct their missions . We want to keep those to the highest levelst. It is essential and the components of that and as you are implying not just the number of Counterterrorism Forces that are striking targets or even and Training Afghan terrorists. And with those terrorist organizations and military police and of those that i have served on. And in some ways contractors as well. And with the trooper drawdown and then to assist them miss shen to conduct ct missions and connect on collect intelligence what overall does thisoe mn with the potential difficulties wee may have does is put us in a similarr situation in iraq in 2011 through 2014 to be back in afghanistan down the road stronger and more organized terrorist groups that threaten ust . It doesnt entirely pu us back but we are ting aisk by going down at 2500. That force posture may be enough to conduct strikes against terrorist but we he to move the trainers from the Afghan Air Force up to the ministry and as the ministry of defense and we lose the ability to trainfghans at the operational andti tactical level at the risk of the state of the war. And then to accept some risk. I defer tmy colleague. Thank you for yielding your time to me. Obey speaking about the need with their universal agreement there a threat afghanistan. Facing a lot of threats and adversaries and swe have to take a holistic view and with those tradeoffs going to war three times at the taliban and those that are charged to keep our country safe to rpond to those threats but i also know we fe domestic terror threats over 1000 americans a day are dying of covid19 because we are not adequately addrsing that. 50000 and are dying by opioids because we are not addressing that a thi is not a philosophical discussion with the different threats that is tactical so what i belve is we do have to drawdown the reasonwe have articulated before the right way to do and wrong way to do and fm my perspective t process has been a bla box wl have sufficient information we can ve aic discussion with that ospect of relative risk so do belve america would benefit from a more trsparent process like what we authorized t with our partners that understand the threats and the proper way to drawdown. Its always better to have a transparent process with any administrationtu outlined in what is the force posture with the diplomatic presence. Ambassador crocker . We are a great demracy and the greatness of our decracy and then to deal with a lot of hardship so i would hope there is an effort in the coming months to articulate precisely that. But thcase needs to be b made. I would love your thoughts on the first question. And those that take lives in the nam to spend public treasury we owe it to th public to debate ts publicly and build consensus whatever policy we adopt and i commend the committee for its role with todays hearing. Friends and allies and i am extremely concerned with the nato partners 30 partners and allies committed and by my estimation not given adequate formation what they are trying to do in the mention doctor jones article five only invoked ter 9 11 a always in estimation to go in togeth and come out togher very briefly and the Nato Alliance and consulting with them. And to keep her presence in afghanistan because it provides additional value to us. Thank you ambassador crocker. Clearly we have to do a better job of communicating with our strategic partners. We see the stement of the secretary general and to expres hisistress wheree are going and how we do it. So yes nato has stood up in afghanistan and we will stay the course. The Alliance System one of the relative to those in russia and russia with the system the United States enjoys. Respect for allies enabs us to takedvantage that it brings tohe tablend to take the ay seriously to the greatest degree possible. Thank you for yielding me his time. Mr. Gates is next for five minutes. Thank you madam chair in my minority member to hold a minority view on the committee i am against it. Base on even the words ofer own Witnesses Today the corruption iafghanistan isn unsolvable. Its not a criticism of the current administration, these are conditionss present for t last 19 years as we rated the same vilges ba and forth with the taliban. We are leaving and getting nothing but we are getting is out. The biggest loser afghanistan but now as i rea prepared testony particularly doctor t for those 2500 troops hano military value that will fundamentallwin the war. And we cut it when it and now we take the 2500 that will preserve the alliance and ensure the allies but the purpose of these troops is politics political feature for the war in afghanistan and with that accelerator drawdown without war of attrition that the United States would lose and maintain that level of violence to capture theirir political power. The obvious question is, if we know the 2400 troops were leaving their dont have military value and are there is a political statement probably the enemy knows tt also in the very dynamics laid out for their testimony today. It only ends one way with us leaving and the taliban getting more power with coitions in afghanistan with pretty rough shape goi forward. As they had been for the last two decades and a substantial peri of time beforee that. And with that prerequisite focus we dont have to chase every potential terrorist and to every cavso we can thump our chest and say we are being tough with the w gbal counterterrorism mission. With the levels of 2500 this is the longest warn the nations history. Our country is weary even the Armed Servicesommittee is not. I yield back. F after having served for tours i iraq but one lesson we have learned and so willynilly without any lerage is clearly the wrong thing to do with republican and demrat before the committee. I wanto end the war in afghanistann and more importantly t bring the troops home for good i dont nt to repeat the mistake from iraq and we withdrew quickly without sufficient plans we hav to turn around and go back in. All the witnesses also agree that we will not win the war in afghanistan there are devastating ways that we could lose and most o all to repeat 11. So to k you a question another way we could lose is to america we expect to be held hostage in the author fi msachusetts and does this proceed with plans to withdraw troops early without any concessionsho and with a safe return and the diplatic negotiations with the accelerator drawdown whatre important factors to consider to sece the relief of these two americans . And ife withdraw earlier than anticipated than what do we have that they are returned safely to their families . Thinking congressman. With these cases another illustration of what we are givingp and certainly doing that and unilateral troop withdrawals and then to cooperate at any scale or on any level. And then with the strategic level for the government and survivability in afghanistan to go down to this level as a well if you have given up her leverage and then to take any steps to release them. If you are programmefor defeat which we seem to be you have no leverage or expectation to gain anything including release of thesenc americans. We dont leave americans behind. And with the art of the deal with these two americans as well as our troops going forward. Mr. Ambassador with the importance of the immigrant visa program with the afghan visa program and the fyi 21 and daa we recognize critical importance of the program and also for future operations where young troops can convince allies overseas to put their lives on the line to support. Why its so critical in our eyes and on future nional Security Operations overseas. I think that is exactly right spent there is a backlog of 18000 cases in afghanistan and that today the family members are getting killed in afghanistanecause of their service t us and to make good on ourledge to them that we would take care of them and you e quite right this has implications far beyond afghanistan the nature of what has changed to the people from the community and with external reservice and i back. Thank you mr. Ambassador. I could hear that madame chairman. So very briefly and that they have disagreed with by virtually everyone that has bookt today. And those that undercuts the peace plan that was put on the sand Inauguration Day for the drawdown and also one more example of the inability to coordinate to respect our allies with the troops on the ground and those that are questioning and with the ally and then also with the European Defense initiative. And i was and discussions and private discussions and the concern that this has been decided it is profound. And then to go on a couple of other issues and to deal with it. And the danger of this with troop safety the longerterm issue to move the troops safely out in a timeframe also the protection of military assets and those that could fall into terrorist hands as a result of the artificial timeframe. And with that justification and that is a complicated issue but how exactly do they have helped us with the increasing inability to deal with them directly . That shortterm Asset Protection and how we benefit strategically and how we benefit strategically one dish over to doctor jones. On the danger of the safety issue you raise important questions i think the tiban has shown over the last couple off months with a significantly decreased it has stopped targeting us forces in. Afghanistanst. It is targeting Afghan Forces why would not expect the taliban to take advantage but otherson that continue to conduct attacks. There are issues related to safe withdrawal in the face the groups like the Islamic State. Also there has to be very serious questions what are we doing wi american and assets infrastructure in the country to support large amounts of money and whwill get it including who wast c in the base if the us is also downsizing. With pakistan very befly pakistan believes this is a wint, and they would like to advance the continuing us drawdown i see this viewed positively. I yield back. You have five minutes. Thank you. Thank you madam chair. We have been in afghanistan almost two deces concerned with the unilateral announcement u troops we cannot be in the openended war and militarily in the intra afghan agreement and i would greatly appreciate it. Thank you congressman your response is broken up i have digested is an issue of strategic patients and a longterm view they spent all those years in exile and wit the course of these peace talks and to vindicate that. I know about being tired. And in pakistan and afghanistan and iraq ambassador to all three. But getting tir are two Different Things but it is not too late to reverse a disastrous course right now. Not just afghanistan. What concrete steps week d dos. We need to make it clear we are not neutral in this matter. S and we will not abandon the ally to the taliban. And then from that anything that we do further will be strictly based on conditions. And then to defend the National Security interest then to demonstrate so strategic patients and we need to do now. And with the Trump Administration and then to use to threaten the us are the allies. And in that apprehension they will not uphold the commitment. And as part of the agreement . The very good answer the engines our intelligence analysis capabilities to a degree to we continue to see meetings from human intelligence between the taliban and al qaeda as we see them operate in areas where there are taliban commanders and that we see other camps operating in afghanistan along the pakistan border. Obviously a range of ways with Geospatial Intelligence it does become harder and to make it more difficult for nsa and cia to put the important units and Collection Sites that the more we withdraw the harder it becomes to see that. I have limited time. Doctor biddle to root out corruption what can they do different . Spent there is a limited amount we can do because what we see is so deeply rooted and fundamental and the features of the governmentha system. How much we can accomplish on that one. And thank you very much and i am out of time. You. Ank thank you. Only start with you doctor, thank you for taking time to come here. I was reading through october interview that you conducted with now, acting secretary of defense chris miller. This was in october. You mentioned three Lessons Learned in the fight. When is that we have to maintain pressure on the terrace organizations so they cannot create sanctuaries rated number two, you know of the fail. And three, and policies not get better with age. And i wanted to think through what these three counterterrorism lessons in mind, i want to get your reflections on the decisions now that he has taken part in with regards to afghanistan. When your thoughts are on each of those three levels whether or not those conditions have been t in afghanistan. We beg with the importance of maintaining pressure. I think the 2500 does allow us to continue to pressure al qaeda and some terrorist groups including Islamic States in afghanistan. I do think that a complete withdrawal would have eliminated our ability to maintain pressure against terrorist organizations and having some special Operation Forces and some aircraft does allow us to keep pressure. But i do think going down to the lels that we are just because us to risk the broader counrinsurgency campaign. A. Kim so i think we are taking risks, imot sure that i wouldve recomnded to go down to 2500 but i do think that we still can maintain pressure with the force that we have. I dont think we want to let afghanistan fail. And again, part of the issue not just the military rent. Part of it is also the aid that we need to provide in one of the things that i i recommended in y testimony, my written testimony reese and it was also to make it very cle to the Afghan Government that we areoing to provide sustained assistance to the government like we do in other countries. And that we would be of supporting partner in the next several years. So think the issue is not to just focus on the military forces but what are we doing in terms of state department and u. S. Agency for International Development assistance. When we doing on the intelligence aid. The stuffr has not been cleared. So actually would like to hear more clarity and what nonmilitary types of assistance are happening. Kim as would i. And i work in afghanistan about ten years ago. And then also it i visited afghanistawith the number of my colleagues in a Bipartisan Group a year ago. These are the exact same questions that were heard which is whats a comprehensive strategy. What is actual way in which we work inhi this way, i want to tn to the ambassador targeted you for the ambassador in afghanistan. Wh i i was there in 2011. And always appreciat your leadership out there. The wanted to focus in on what he said about nato. New are talkin but i made up is coming up with a different approach. They have Different Things are. I wanted to ask you, if you could give us a little mor deta into any reflections that you have in communications you had with no partners for the countrys other sing the situation and whyt is it it sees to have longer horizon and freshness and also just concluded what is your assessment of the state of the Nato Alliance. And also the thoughts in terms of how we need to prepare. Jones than you congressman. Nato made it clear during the time that i was there. I do remember your visit. Thank you for making that effort. Its important to come up and see things on the ground for yourself. As you did. Our nato allies as you know stood up for us. Article five. I have been pleasantly surprised of their willingness to make a longterm commitment they have. In afghanistan. They are ready to stay. As long as we are staying. But to think that theyre going to save we ago. That is the hinge point we are at right now. At the president s drawdown decision that did not involve consultation wit nato. I believe very strongly that the Nato Alliance is critical for the Global Security as well as americas security. We all have frustrations with nato. Both in terms of financial commitments and capabilities. There is one arena where they are ready. Unfortunately, my time expires will have to yield back. Thank you for your assessment. Thank y for much. Ms. Horn is recognized for five minutes. I yelled back my time. I just walked in. Thank you chairman. At this point i dont thi we have anyone else seeking time. I have one last question for ambassador crocker. I think it is sort of the crux the pblem and certainly we understand the risks and they been very well expined of what can happen in afghastan. Those risks g up to some extent if were not present trying to contain them rated but whenbo youre talng about missus vy long held belief by any people that after the soviets were driven out of afghanistan, our decision to not stay and engag in the impact of that, you know a lot more about afghanistan that i do read ive been there nine times but for not any length. T and certainly not in the depth that you hav but if you were to take m back to that moment andnowing what we know now, i just dont think us stayi solved the problem. I thi thats what a lot of people are wrestling with. Connectivity. Im sorry, investor crocker are you hearing me okay. [inaudib]. I will take that as a no. So doctor jones back here. If you couldnswer this question. My point is, a weve heard f it described, the disnguished doctor jones made the point. The government gets too powerful, the war lords get upset and you have to appease them. He certainly have that the drug trade, you have extremists. Everyonenn afghanistan about owner must attend guns. And after the sovietsit command, it really blew up the existg government. Had the funding of the came out of saudi arabia and aria which radicalized a large portion of the population. Ad we honestly say there was something that we couldve done in 1989 it wouldve changed that. I think that is what is concerning to a lot of people is here we have a huge problem. And if we show up, we will solve it. At just does not sm to play out ratedhere are certain things that u. S. Military in a foreign country, just cant come in and solved. And the idea that gosh, if we leave everythings going to go to. Its an enoous ct, certainly in lives, the risk of lives, the destructionf lives. Of American Service members and others who serve there. Also there is a global cost in terms of our credibilitynd while were doing that, what can we be doing. And again, we got u. S. Tros killing the afghanistan. It is goingo be a certain amount of resentment. ThAfghan People for that. So i guess to the question of alwaysly americans, aree rlly able to solve these rlly incredible complex problems that exist in afghanistan. Most peoes impression is that is the falling of thinking that sohow if we were just there i greater numbers and we were jus there a little bit smarter. We could achieve some sort of peace deal. I dont know what kind of conductivity stuff is done here. So doctor jones are singing from the me. I let you take a stab at that. Jones i wouldre say the u. S. Position today is very different than what it was in the 1980s where we were actually in pakistan and afghanistan. But we are providing assistance i got confused with what was going on with conductivity. Im talking about when it was done right and that is the war. That was the great part of it friday gosh, we pulled out and everything would hack. If only we had gone in. It would been fixed. But i dont believe that tole be honet with you. Jones i would say that if we kept a close intelligence and probably a special operations residence embedded with more thane Alliance Forces which wee still surviving in the end of the 90s. And we couldve and i think the 911 Commission Report highlights is. We couldve conducted an attack against van lawton at that point. We did not, the Clinton Administration and him within the sites. I think having a presence there, what are thehe loudest to condut action. One quick point though. There a risks in doing what you jus described. Becaus that is theisk of inaction. Weve taken actns before prayed the bond that pharmaceutical plant in sudan which blew up in her face. We launched a bunchf cruis missiles and to try to take out bin laden. So i think theres a tendency to say, inaction bad, action good for interaction bad. Its more of a balance depending on the circumstances. And there are risks either way. Yes they are. I think thats where were at today. Do we take the risk of leaving and sing what happens afterwards or can we accept some small military psence and so made. D keep the Afghan Government and the taliban talking and preventing theverthrow at ast for the next couple of years. And see where thisoes. That is what my advice is to consider. Just to conclude. I believe that there is still transnational terrorist threat. We talk about the shift of the great power competition. I know the challenges that are presented by russia and china. I think its important that we keep in mind that there still only one group of people that gets up every morning hoping to kill as any americans and westerners as they possibly can and the only thing that is stopping them is the ability to do it for it is not a lack of will. It and that is located in isis and various facilities all of the world. We will have to do something in my view to contain that threat. And i think those who wish away and safe we just were fighting stop hatingld just us. That is not going to work. Something needs to be done to contain that stretch. I think with the American People try to figure out is how can we do that in a way that is lost costly and putting the troops at risk. The think thats what we have to work towards. This is hardly unfair. But believe it or not we are wrapping up. Mr. Chairman. [inaudible]. Im sorry. Mrthornbry, you have the floor. Im just a brief question based on some earer conversations. He was asking you doctor jones about force proction. And i know that the other doctor talked about two sources of leverage, what is the presence of our troops,he other is our financial commitment. The concern haseen expressed to me tha if we unilaterally make significant tked to our financial commitments, including danger are forcesho were there. In some way. Because that leverage, that incentive would be reduced. To you have an opinion about that. Yes, i think the answer to that depends on what types of assistance forecast. I certainly think that training to local forces, pticularly if its hard to trigger some animosities that we have seen and attacks against u. S. Forces fromul afghan, the situation deteriorates. It would be o concern but i also think that are we cutting keep resources that protect our rces on the basis where we operate. I think that needs to be looked at very closely. Will whatever the number 25 of 45, its not any folks we depend upon the afghans to protect our folks by and large. And it just seems to me to be a key incineration. Finally mr. Chairman, i reallyre appreciate all three witnesses and their testimony in the ring with us today. I think it is been very hopeful and i yelled back. We did have a couple more mbers of the american. Since we w concluded ts so we will go with ms. Spearirst and then we will adjourn after that. You are recognized for five minutes. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank youou especially for the chairman. S been very insightful. To all of the witnesses, extraordinary testimony to investor crocker. When af lifetime of contributios you have made to our country. Not sure if e it was you or somebody else, somebody said we are going to pay for it if we leave abruptly. And i would like for someone who ever said thator to define whats paying for it mean. [silence]. Statement ms. Spear. It. Im sorry. Investor crocker, are you still with us. Sounds like we have lost our connection to investor. So maybe two doctor jones and in the doctor. According to the withdrawal, we see what is happened is certainly in iraq. I worry about the reinstatement, and the impact on women and children. I worry that we have to calibrate what presence that will be relevant is0 rated 2500 is enough or do we need 4000. Can we reinstate the other 2000 after the bidendm administration comes into operation if that is where he is inclined to go. In your own words, kind of answer those two or three questions. I would personally like to see the withdrawal quarter remanded to. I would like our curre troop levels remain police from the beginning of the ben administration. Part for the political issue of the leverage of the talks b in part because our afghan allies continue t defend especially in the airstrikes of the u. S. Presence provides. If we were to public withdrawal. If we were to totally withdraw i think it isna very likely to the afghaNational Security forces would break. Theyre taking heavy casualties and comba are ready. The serious strains on the organization. If we were to ave, i would signal them for the future is very negative. Cam and cbat motivation affected in a very dangerous white by perceptions and this is now a hopeless enterprise. And that sooner or later than looking at failure and defeat in the absence of the u. S. Upport. Think the signal that would send it to the security fors is likely to cause them to be unable to sustain the stalemate we nancy. Thank you doctor jones prayed. Jones yes, i did not use d the words pay for about what i would say if at theoment we have something close to a military stalemate and afghan estate, and a rough balance of power, the afgh government on the one side and supportrom t u. S. And other nato cntries on the other. We have the taliban some support from pakistan. From iran, from russia and from summa other outside donors. Break that balance by a complete withdrawal. Ecigs shipped the balance in favor of the television. I think all of us noted during this hearing that the taliban continues to have relations with al qaeda. And i think it gives only a matter of te before the taliban stars to overrun major cities. And other provinces. And i think in the concern is you start to see. [inaible]. That is my concern. I apologize for tt. You still have time go ahead. Was that doctor jones speaking. Or was tha the investor. That was jones afternoon speaking. And i guess that he cannot connect. So got i guess my final question if i stop time mr. Chrman is, is there anything that isftenf asked this morning, that any of you would like to inform us about thate should be looking at the maybe has not been discussed. Ng. I i am getting a headd shake. I. Go ahead. I just take theho opportunit. But i would suggest is this whole exercise tells us is very important to think of determination of a war when you begin a war. If we engage in eany kind of these interventions in the future, wer need from the beginning to understand that the world just ends when you talk to the capit but there will be some subsequent process we need to think in advance if we had understood that in 2001 and negotiated the taliban what heni had me at that agent rather than assuming that we won the war. I think we would not now be in this situation. The easiest way to prevent that kind of dilemmas we fe now, is a sell them at the beginning. We get involved, when we understa what our wargames are and when we acct the idea is a negotiion is a way to realize our work athe beginning. Thats a better solution than raging a 2 year war. And then Nuclear Options in the en next person is recognized for five minutesha. Thank you chairman smith. Wanted to follow up on congressman kims question regarding the impact that this scale withdrawal but impact on our allies. Sick and jones, i would love to hear your seven is about how our allies and what position putting both nato and nonio nato. Jones i think there were two challenges. And then we sought with the reaction of the natives, they were not given sufficient advance warning. ~ did not include was a broader u. S. Nato another forces, what are their objectives combined objectives of the forced postures collectively that they needof and how does it affect al of that so i did not see a lot of Strategic Planning with our allies. In second issue is remember, there is pressure andl should be pressure in all of our allies capitals and among the population. With people who are asking why the germans still have wars and the italians andgh british and what they saw forces in afghanistan. I think the recognition here is simply want those countries to continue to train and engage in combat operations we have to treat them as allies, plan with them as allies and thats the only way i think were able to keep it. I think that actually provide advantages. They have forces on the ground and they can train Afghan Forces. I think at the end of the day, the shows that this is not just us. Earlier in discussion we talked with the potential impact of the removal of troops for the breakdown of troops would have on the negotiations for peace and iwo want to link those two discussions together. The need for us to strategically stand with our allies going and a domino effect that our reduction troops would have on other presence in her belly presence on the ground. And how that might impact the negotiations especially given the changes in changing relationships. May have hh tensions with our allies. Is not directed at me. Yes. I think its a very good question. I think when you look at this fr the talibans perspective, they agreedo start negotiations in septemb. Those negotiations have gone nowhere. They have now perceived they have been rewarded for dragging their feet byas further u. S. Drawdowns does not connected in any way to progress on the peace settlement. I think issuing your is if we won an actual Peace Agreement, and no one can be rewarded for this. Specifically in the point of the relationship with nato and non nato allies print is earning more than she was in terms of that impact on potential collaboration and strategy as you mentioned for the peacemaker negotiations. Think that the addition of International Forces is also an important bargaining chip in the negotiation. Much as he was forces leaving as we talk about was also other International Forces leaving. Thats important to know here. I dont know if we still have investor proper. If you want to weigh in on this i would appreciate it. Thank you. Reconnected. You are. This is not about force levels, its about american results. That is all has been very sadly wanting goi all the way back ton the inception of the stocks that excluded the Afghan Government. There is that we make as a country. All of us in different ways have said, we are in a very dangerous situation for now. And thats only going to make it worse. Our strength is nation has been based on things like one of them are our alliances. Nato is crucial. [inaudible]. We have an opportunity here to seize it. But first, we need to stop this literally. Av second, we have to have a conversation among ourselves. This is not a lost cause. If we demonstrate that result. Thank you and youll the remainder of my time. Thank you and we do have one more memberho in turn. And that is it no matter who comes back. You will have the last words of the hearing. Thank you and a help that you can hear me. My question is for doctor middle pa of the United States was headed to. [inaudible]. In your written testimony sai that the expectations on the part of the dennys offer yes engagement for the ability t to negotiate. That is just wondering your view of what would be are always moving away from o states approach especially the evefnm the transition of government in the United States been able to ask the ahan people. What is it mean to interact and negotiate in the future. I think during the Trump Administration, view of any afghans was that we were in i out regardle of what happened. It conditions face language was not to be taken seriously or usted. And then in turn, made it very difficult for the afghan governme toersuade members of his own Political Coalition that they should except coromises in order to get a deal. Hesooked like halflife of the entire ahan government was gog to be very limited. Enhance asking powerbrokers within the elite inarch nearterm start physis for longterm, when total u. S. Look liket was going to pray longtm in afghanistan measured inn minutes. Or months o years at most. It didnt look like a good bargain that in turn made it very difficult for tm to organize any kind of consistent marketing position via thein telephone. None Biden Administration will have anpportunity to make his own decisions about how serisly it takes the stocks and to what dree theyre prepared to use the levere we have remaining toring about the stocks and ang the any difficulties in the stocks, there are so any parties. We tded too think of it is the taliban in the u. S. The tiban in the Afghan Government the Afghan Government is not a unified actor. And in terms of the Afghan Governments to get a consistent position among all the dferent actors internally to his side of the stocks, some degre of oven there stood consistency i u. S. Support to the afghan can is critical for enabling the afghan leadership to persuade the limits of its own Political Coalition that it mak sense for them to be in this for the long haul. Andf we signal to them that were not in it for the long haul, the stability of their own government goes way down the ability of that in stable government to command and if loyalty and cooperation from its own perbrokers to make concessions in theue compromise situation as we gather these are sues that the Biden Administration now has an opportunity to take the opportunity. How they will take it. My next question is somewhat related to that. Assuming that they get the office, what kind of conditions do you think needs to be met before the u. S. Would consider reducing our withdrawing troopss further. Our what remains with this administration. I would like to see further withdrawals condition on the end to the war. If that is our strategy for getting out of this with an acceptable outcome, the way we use our resources needs to be tighter than a Welcome Party of an end to the war is what we want, then thats what we should want, and we should be prepared to leave the small number of troops are now part of this i sent the almost 100,000 soldiers presence of 2011 anymore. This is rather small footprints to begin with. I think we should prepare to save or leave it there until we get what we want which is an end to the war. To read negotiate a stlement. My next questn is kind of troops should remain. And what would you recommend the remain. I have abo a minute leftt. I would recommend any single american soldier is there now there. Until the war ends. In terms of the configuration of what is there, i suspect is. Close to optimized now because of confidence in his ability to design this to be optimal in respect to the cap is given in terms of military capabilities to go along with political role of driving us towards the settlement, the Critical Military capability at the moment is airstrikes. I appreciate your time d i your back. Thank you to witnesses for this discussion we appreciate you being here is sharg your knowledge with us. We are adjourn. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] the what we really focused on it has been lost and undocumented after the fall of the khmer rouge in 1979 in a spiral to epic proportion among many other refugees by themselves in a horrifying utopia that it is a story that everyone should here