The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will come to order. We thank all Senate Foreign Relations Committee will come to order. We thanks all of those in attendance. In rolling out the new south asia strategy last august the administration underscored the United States hard fought security gangs in afghanistan and reiterated helping establish a political resolution. With recent reports of shrinking government control of territory, continued high attrition of Afghan Forces, and deadly attacks in kabul by isis, it is clear that the foundation is a long way off. But we are encouraged by the troop strength authorized in the new strategy at 12,300 military personnel with an additional thousand on request which is approaching the level our force commander requested in 2014. Our nato and nonnato allies have also reinforced troop commitments and support to Afghan Forces through 2020. U. S. Commander general nicholson says he now has what he needs to assist afghans in achieving a sustainable outcome for afghanistan and the region. This administration is also rightly drawn clear line with pakistan, suspending secure the assistance of over a billion as long as islamabad continues to shelter terror groups that target innocent civilians as well as u. S. And allied forces. This more pointed approach is to confront pakistans duplicity and actions to provide safe harbor to the greatest threat to our efforts in afghanistan. These attacks highlight the deadly threats that remain and we must counteract them with a far more unified international community. While President Trump and president ghani stated that these attacks may preclude a Peace Process with the taliban at the moment, it is incumbent upon us to be ready when that moment occurs. I look forward to hearing more strategies in this area, especially in economic diplomacy. In order to make the most of military gangs, nicholson expects. Now i turn it over to mr. Cardin. Thank you. We will hear from the administration, its strategies in regards to afghanistan moving forward. We have two very distinguished witnesses and i, secretary, particularly appreciate the fact that department of defense is present, represented here today. As you know, during the syria hearings, we were unable to get a representative from the department of defense and i that i was unfortunate. And we still have not had a classified briefing on the u. S. Troop presence moving forward in syria. And i hope that will take place. Afghanistan, 16 years of u. S. Combat in afghanistan. Significant u. S. Investment of our blood and treasure. And we are finding out that it is much harder to make peace than war, which is something that we always know is a challenge. All of us condemn the recent carnage that was caused by the insurgents and terrorists in the attack last month. And we very much are committed to ending the violence in afghanistan. But the question is, what is the u. S. Policy as it relates to resolving longterm peace in afghanistan . Mr. Chairman, i note President Trumps comment to the United Nations security council, and here i think were finding conflicting messages as to what the u. S. Policy is in afghanistan. The president set, we dont want to talk to the taliban, were going to finish what we have to finish. What nobody else has been able to finish, we are going to be able to do it. Well, that raises the question as to whether the president believes that this is a militaryonly operation, which i certainly disagree with. I notice that one day after the president s remarks, our witness, secretary sullivan, said that the strategy is to convince the taliban or significant elements of the taliban that there isnt a military solution to the security situation here, that ultimately the peace and security of afghanistan will be determined by peace talks. So, mr. Secretary, i agree with that comment. I think thats where our strategy should be. But the question is, is it clear to our stakeholders globally what the u. S. Policy is in afghanistan . Does the administration really believe that a simple suspension excuse me. So do we have a clear message as to what the u. S. Policy is in regards to our partners in that region . And i hope well have a chance to talk about that today. I want to hear, as i mentioned to you before coming into the chamber, i want to review here today our regional efforts in regards to pakistan and how that impacts on our strategies in afghanistan. Does the administration really believe that a simple suspension of Security Assistance is going to bring about a lasting commitment by pakistan to drop support for the Afghan Taliban or the Haqqani Network . It hasnt before. Weve tried it several times over the past 16 years. I have little confidence that such behavorial change is coming. So are we prepared to do more to elicit the behavorial change we want or is this just more about the same . Assistant secretary schriver, i also hope you can give us a clear detailed sense of the military conflict on the ground. I understand that much of the u. S. Military strategy has focused on supporting Afghan Security forces efforts to protect Population Centers. Judging from the devastating recent attacks in kabul, something clearly is not working. We see that the taliban contest or control an increasing swath of the afghan territory. It competes with isis for influence, leading to more and more brutal attacks. By any standard, the current security situation is grim. The bottom line is, the administration consistently says that it has a conditionbased strategy contrasted with the approach taken by the obama administration. But the administration has yet to articulate with any precision what those conditions are. What is the end state that the u. S. And nato troops are fighting for . Weve been there 16 years. Should the American People simply accept that this is, indeed, a forever war . To me the answer is a clear and resounding no. There is no military solution to the conflict in afghanistan. Last year, i introduced legislation that would boost Diplomatic Program and a Peace Process as well as pursuing justice for war time atrocities and accountability for human rights abuses and corruption by afghan officials that continue to undermine the Peace Process. I stand ready as i think the members of this committee to work with the administration so that we have a clear policy for an end game in afghanistan that can bring stability to the people of afghanistan, allow our troops to come home and really achieve, i hope, which is our objective. Thank you for those comments. With that, id like to recognize our distinguished witnesses today. Our first witness is the honorable john sullivan. The deputy secretary of state. Our second witness is the honorable randall schriver, assistant secretary of defense for asian and pacific affairs. Thank you both for being here. We appreciate you being here. Its a timely hearing. If you can keep your comments to five minutes, that would be great. Any written testimony you have without objection will be entered into the record. With that, secretary sullivan, we appreciate it if you would begin. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Good morning, Ranking Member cardin, members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me here today to provide an update on the administrations south asia policy, particularly as it applies to afghanistan. I want to begin by offering my thoughts on afghanistan in light of my trip to kabul last week and talk about how we are engaging together with our partners across the interagency in a regional approach in south asia to bolster stability in the region and in afghanistan in particular. During my trip, i was first and foremost able to extend in person our condolences, thoughts and prayers to the hundreds of victims and their families, all of those who were affected by the recent terrible acts of violent terrorism. The United States remains firmly committed to supporting the Afghan People in their governments efforts to achieve peace, security and prosperity for their country. While in kabul, i met with president ghani, chief executive abdullah and other Afghan Partners. Every leader reiterated their support for our strategy and their commitment to creating the conditions that will bring the taliban to the negotiating table as senator cardin mentioned in his opening remarks. Thereby establishing an environment for sustained peace. These leaders also reaffirmed their support for the afghanistan compact, a series of benchmarks established by the afghans to implement reforms in security, governance, rule of law, Economic Development and peace and reconciliation. President ghani and i cochaired an executive Committee Meeting of the compact where we reviewed and highlighted progress on those benchmarks. I also discussed with the afghan leadership the critical importance of timely, credible and transparent elections. Its vital that parliamentary and president ial elections take place this year and next respectively, and that they reflect the will of the Afghan People and create an inclusive government that continues to implement these fundamental reforms. In addition to shifting to a conditionsbased approach instead of one predicated on arbitrary timelines, the south asia strategy marks a change from the status quo in u. S. Pakistan relations. We intend to hold pakistan accountable for its failure to deny sanctuary to militant proxies. We encourage restraint in pakistans military, nuclear and missile programs and seek continued closer alignment of pakistans nonproliferation policies with our own. We continue to value our relationship with pakistan and recognize the benefit of cooperation. Pakistan has played an Important Role in pushing al qaeda closer to defeat, combatting isis, securing its nuclear weapons, hosting afghan refugees, and importantly, providing access for supplies and equipment used by u. S. And Afghan Forces. We also acknowledge the enormous sacrifices the pakistani people and Security Forces have made to combat terrorism. We have shared with pakistan our south asia strategy in detail and have made our expectations clear to pakistan, emphasizing that they must take Decisive Action against all militant and terrorist groups based there. In january, the president suspended Security Assistance to the pakistani military, with limited exceptions for programs that directly support u. S. National security interests, which would be decided on a case by case basis. We may consider lifting the suspension when we see decisive and sustained actions to address our concerns, including targeting all terrorist groups operating within its territory without distinction. The United States is committed to doing our part to reduce tensions in the region in ways that address pakistans legitimate concerns. To be clear, we oppose the use of terrorist proxies by any country against another country anywhere in the world. The use of terrorism has no place in a rulesbased international system. We hope the pakistanis will also help to convince the taliban to enter into a Peace Process. We continue to deepen our Strategic Partnership with india. Secretary tillerson travelled to new delhi for consultations in october of 2017 and we expect to launch our inaugural two plus two dialogue with india this spring when secretary tillerson and secretary mattis will meet with their india counterparts to further deepen our security ties. The United States and india share economic and humanitarian interests in afghanistan. India has allocated more than 3 billion in assistance to afghanistan since 2001. India further strengthened ties with afghanistan with the signing of a Development Partnership agreement last year. We appreciate these contributions and we look forward for more ways to work with india to promote Economic Growth and security in afghanistan. The United States is also strengthening our partnerships with the Central Asian republics. We are committed to supporting their independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty and fostering regional connectivity. Two weeks ago, i attended a c5plus one in a discussion on afghanistan at the u. N. Security council where we discussed our bilateral and multilateral efforts to support afghanistan and enhance Central Asian cooperation. These initiates and others have helped the effort to build stability in afghanistan and provide a better security and more Economic Opportunity for the people of central asia. Despite recent setbacks stemming from the horrific and senseless acts of violence we witnessed recently, the president s south asia strategy is showing some signs of progress. On the battlefield, were seeing the talibans momentum begin to slow. No major Population Center has fallen to the taliban since its temporary occupation of kandu city in 2015. Afghan forces are now on the offensive. Our allies and nato partners contributing more than 6,500 troops are actively supporting our vision for a process process afghanistan. In the Afghan Government, we have a partner that is tackling challenges, including corruptions that have greatly hindered progress to date. Thank you and i look forward to answering your questions. Thank you very much. Secretary schriver, sir. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman, Ranking Member carver and other distinguished members of the committee. Im thankful for the opportunity to give the d. O. D. Perspective on the implementation of our south asia strategy. To address the enduring interests we have in south asia and afghanistan in particular. South asia is home to two nucleararmed countries. Its also home to the highest concentration of u. S. Designated foreign terrorist groups so we have enduring interests there. Our strategy emphasizes Regional Cooperation to reduce the threat of terrorism, reduce the threat and possibility of Nuclear Conflict and to put pressure on the taliban and other parties to seek reck sills. Reconciliation. We remain engaged with pakistan to protect americans, to protect our homeland and ensure there are no safe havens from which terrorists can plan and operate to support attacks. Our strategy focuses on the region as a whole and shifts from a timebased approach to a conditions on the ground approach and promotes political settlement. Regarding afghanistan, we focus on four key pillars known as the socalled four rs. Regionalization, realignment, reconciliation neutral easing potential spoilers and creating the conditions for durable political solutions. As the deputy secretary noted, i would also note we were pleased with indias role in this regard and their decision to increase economic and humanitarian aid to afghanistan. As he also noted, we have shifted our approach on pakistan. They are an important partner and theyre absolutely key to our strategy succeeding. During secretary mattis trip at the end of last year to pakistan, he made clear that we appreciate the sacrifices theyve made on the war on terror. Our interest in continuing to partner with them, but he also made clear that we must see a change in pakistans behavior, in particular areas where we have great concerns. Reenforcement involves improving the Afghanistan National defense and Security Force capabilities and their effectiveness. We do so by providing advisory support and tailored commitment and training and assistance in expanding the size and reach of the more highperforming forces, the special forces of afghanistan. We also do this by assisting in areas where they lack key capabilities, such as in aviation and intelligence. Nato and Coalition Partner uplifts are underway and will continue through 2018 and our own uplift is underway. U. S. And nato will seek increased afghanistan control of Population Centers, a reduction of violence, increased capabilities of Afghan Special forces and an increase to the independence of an sdf operations. Simultaneously, were realigning u. S. Military and civilian assistance to coincide with our overall objectives and our strategy. Major realignment initiatives include adjustments to our train, advise and assist authorities. Seeking to improve the lethality and unity of effort within the Afghan Security forces and shift lethal and nonlethal resources outside of afghanistan into theater. There is an ambitious roadmap for the Afghan Security forces as defined by leadership in kabul. They seek to double the size of their special forces and modernize their air force. Next steps will include the deployment of u. S. Security assistance for the existing train advise and existing structure and will continue to evaluate and determine how those efforts particularly contributing at lower levels more tactical levels impacting the effectiveness of Afghan Security forces. Reconciliation remains our overarching objective. We seek to drive the taliban to an understanding they wont achieve their goals on the battlefield or through violence. To do so well continue to support the afghans on the battlefield. We seek to drive the parties to a political settlement that ends the conflict, reduces violence and denies safe haven for terrorists. Thank you, and look forward to any questions. Thank you, senator cardin. Thank you both for your testimony. Secretary schriver, let me start with you for a moment, if i might. A good part of the u. S. Engagement in afghanistan is to maintain the confidence of the people that we are there in an interest of having a government that will protect the rights of all of its people. There have been some reported cases of that, that involve the behavior involving Afghan Security forces and children thats been reported that u. S. Soldiers witnessed, would said it would be best to leave it alone rather than reporting this misconduct. Do we have a very clear policy among our military that the United States has a responsibility to make sure that theres accountability, including the forces that were working with, to report any abuse of human rights, to make sure that the accountabilities for atrocities are ensured, whether they be the terrorist groups or the Afghan Forces . We do. We certainly reject any of that kind of behavior, and would seek to address that. We welcome any scrutiny that reveals that, including reporting by our forces. And certainly weve seen the same kind of reporting. And word has been delivered to our forces that they have a responsibility to report this kind of this kind of activity should they see it. Its really important. Weve had this conversation with the with secretary sullivan and the state department that part of the healing process in afghanistan is accountability. For those who have committed gross violations of human rights, whether they are, again, the insurgence terrorists or by local forces. I take it, mr. Secretary, that that is still the policy of the United States on accountability as part of a settlement of whats going on in afghanistan . Emphatically so, senator. We bring it up repeatedly with our partners in the Afghan Government. I did during my visits in kabul last week with president ghani and his cabinet. Would you just briefly review with us the status of the opportunities for regional diplomacy, and whether the United States will be participating in the meetings in the kabul process that are scheduled to take place later this month . Yes, senator, there are a number of opportunities. Theres the kabul process. Following that there will be a conference in tashkent, uzbekistan, sponsored by the uzbek government in coordination with the Afghan Government. Who will represent the United States at those meetings . The United States will be the representative. I might be the representative, but a senior level u. S. Government representative participating. So lets talk a bit about pakistan. What is the strategy here . Have we seen any change in behavior positive for the United States as a result of the announced policies on International Aid . There certainly hasnt been any change that was that we would consider final and irrevocable. Weve had a number of discussions with our pakistani partners on expectations for change and expelling terrorists from areas in which theyve been allowed to operate. They understand what we expect. Our suspension of Security Assistance continues, until we see more evidence that they are, in fact, taking action. So they have engaged in discussions with us. But there hasnt been a sufficient amount of action yet, such that we would be lifting that suspension of Security Assistance. Joel johnson, just a little bit more, what is our objective in regards to taliban, as far as their participation in the Peace Process, the role the u. S. Plays, the role pakistan plays, the role afghanistan plays . How does that come about . What is the diplomacy that brings about a meaningful process that can lead to peace . Well, weve engaged in discussions with the with both the governments in kabul and islamabad on the need for a Peace Process to resolve the situation in afghanistan. Including the taliban . Including the taliban. What we havent seen, however, is any inclination from at least significant elements of the taliban that are still engaging in horrific acts of terrorist violence as we saw last month in kabul. So everyone else seems willing to engage in a discussion at a peace conference except those elements of the taliban who are engaged in killing innocent men and women and children in kabul. And just one last question. The common perception is that pakistans not doing enough to change that equation. Is that your assessment . Certainly, our assessment that pakistan has not done enough to expel elements of the taliban that have been operating in sanctuaries in pakistan, and able to cross the border. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator young. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And welcome, gentlemen. Assistant secretary schriver, in your prepared statement you discuss helping Afghan Security forces to become more capable and effective. As part of that you touch on the effort to transition Afghan Forces from russian made to u. S. Made aircraft. I support that effort. Helping the afghans transfer to u. S. Made equipment will provide them superior capability, more effective life cycle sustainment of equipment, and increased interoperablity with our own forces. Secretary shriver you agree that a transition of that equipment will yield a benefit for Afghan Partners and the United States . We believe it will, and its an important part of our approach. Im glad to hear you say that. Its a happy coincidence that it will provide benefits to u. S. Workers, true for my own constituents in the state of indiana. In the northern part of my state, were building thousands of new humvees. My constituents take great pride in that work, knowing a greater Security Force remains safer in america as well. An Afghan Partner shouldnt have to ride in combat in thinskinned pickup trucks, which is what some are having to do. Secretary schriver and secretary sullivan, consider me an ally to facilitate the transition of u. S. Equipment for the Afghan Security forces. Let me know how i can help. Secretary sullivan, on a quick, but important note, i want to thank you and your department for your assistance related to ethiopian adoptions weve been trying to consummate. This has been very important to a number of families in my own state. Ive received a specific and unequivocal commitment from the new ethiopian ambassador related to certain cases still in the pipeline. Im hopeful and optimistic that the new ambassador will honor his commitment to me regarding these specific cases. I wanted to publicly articulate that my hopefulness in that regard. And my gratitude to your department. If for some reason this commitment is not honored, i may need to request your assistance once again. Can we have that conversation in the coming week or two depending on the answer i get from the ethiopian government, sir. Of course, senator, weve had this conversation going back a year now. Were aware of recent developments in ethiopia with respect to adoptions and the need for special treatment for those cases that are already pending. And id be happy to discuss that with you further. Okay. Thank you so much. Lastly, id like to turn to the socalled afghanistan compact. I applaud the administration for shifting to a conditionsbased rather than a calendarbased approach to the military campaign in afghanistan. Our National Security interests and objectives, the situation on the ground, and the advice of our diplomats and military leaders should guide our force posture in afghanistan. However, military progress is necessary but not sufficient. If we dont see progress in governance, rule of law and development, any military gains will not be sustainable, and those military gains will not lead to durable attainment of our objectives in afghanistan. This is what our National Security adviser often calls the need to consolidate our gains around the world. Secretary sullivan, in your prepared testimony you mention the afghanistan compact, a series of reform benchmarks established by the afghans to implement reforms in the areas of security, governance rule of law. Economic development and peace and reconciliation. According to a statement by our embassy in kabul last august, this sets more than 200 benchmarks. Secretary sullivan, you also write in your prepared testimony that during your trip to afghanistan last week, you reviewed and highlighted progress on those benchmarks. Ambassador bass testified last september that the Afghan Government has asked us to hold them accountable to these commitments. Secretary sullivan, where is the Afghan Government falling short of these afghanistan compact benchmarks, and whats being done to address the shortcomings . The principle focus of our meetings last week, ambassador bass and i met with president ghani and with his cabinet that is the executive committee that forms the socalled compact. Our focus last week was on corruption, and any corruption efforts. The afghans have adopted a legal structure which we applaud, and weve supported where we need to see more action on followthrough. On cases that are brought under the legal regime that has been adopted theyve adopted an office to prosecute corruption cases. But we need to see that office and those legal remedies actually employed. There have been some cases brought, but i pointed out that there really hadnt been as many as we would have expected given the scope of the problem. Mr. Secretary, you always strike me, every time youre before this committee so forthright and forthcoming. I thank you for that. What i really think we need is more detail as a committee so we can fulfill our article 1 oversight responsibilities. Do you commit to providing to this committee a list of the afghanistan compact benchmarks, in a detailed, specific and written assessment of where the Afghan Government is falling short on these commitments, and how kabul with our help plans to address these shortcomings. I do, senator, and welcome it. Thank you. Thank you. Senator shane . Thank you both for being here. Mr. Schriver, im especially pleased to see you here as someone from d. O. D. I think its important for us to understand how state and d. O. D. Are working in conjunction on issues like afghanistan. Having said that, there are some measures that suggest that the taliban are now in control of, or contesting more territory today than at any point since 2001. You all have both referred to the horrific terrorist attacks that killed so many afghans in recent weeks. So im trying to better understand how this strategy is going to move afghanistan forward. President trump declared, in august of last year, that americas not nation building again. So im not clear what exactly that means because, like senator young, i share the concern that governance is as big, if not bigger issue in afghanistan, than the military situation. So if were not nation building, does this mean were less committed to human rights, to fighting corruption, to promoting Good Governance . What exactly does that mean, mr. Sullivan . The United States is committed to supporting an afghanled process that develops a government thats suitable for the Afghan People and acceptable to them. We arent going to dictate the terms of either a peace settlement between the Afghan Government and the taliban, for example. We have certain irreducible benchmarks for a basic stability in the country so that, for example, you mentioned taliban controlled areas. With a taliban controls an area, theres massively increased drug cultivation and production, decrease in security, has a dramatic effect on the afghan economy. So we want to have a stable afghanistan that is not a base for terrorism as secretary schriver, and then one that respects the afghan constitution, which includes protections for women. Those are our basic irreducible basic thresholds for a resolution of our engagement in afghanistan. And were continuing to support the afghan efforts, both with personnel and with resources . Yes, we are, i met with general nicholson when i was there last week, and secretary schriver can go into greater detail. Were providing both with our nato partners, and u. S. Military support for Afghan Security forces, army, police, a particular focus now with security in kabul, and developing a Security Force in kabul to prevent the types of violent terrorist acts we saw last month. Good. On pakistan, do we really believe that pakistan has the ability to convince the taliban to go to the negotiating table, as you suggested in your testimony . They certainly have the ability to urge the taliban to do so. What we believe they do have the ability to do also is to expel them from sanctuaries in their country. They may not be able to actually drive them to the negotiating table, but they can help and they can eliminate sanctuaries in their country where they currently operate. They have, and im not trying to make excuses for pakistan, but they have over a period of time lost thousands of pakistanis in the effort to throw terrorist groups out of their territory. With some success and not entire success. There has been a suggestion over the years that one of the challenges with the Haqqani Network is their ties to isi and whether the the government would be able to withstand an effort to remove the Haqqani Network because of the potential to create instability within the government. Do we believe that to be true . And if so, how is our pakistan strategy accommodating that concern . Well, we certainly understand the challenges that pakistan faces with these terrorist organizations within their borders. Some of them corrected at pakistan itself, others directed at other countries in the region, afghanistan, india, elsewhere. Pakistan has suffered grievously from terrorist attacks, as we all know, and as i cited in my testimony. What were looking for from pakistan is more support from them against terrorist organizations that are outward focused in addition to their focus. The pakistan governments efforts against terrorist organizations that threaten pakistan. I understand its a delicate its a delicate balance for pakistan. We want to do all we can to support them in that effort. And we have provided an enormous amount of assistance, monetary and otherwise, to the pakistani government, what were looking for is an indication from them more support directed at those outward focused terrorist organizations. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator isakson. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Part of our new strategy calls for integration of diplomatic and economic sets into our military effort. That sounds a bit like provincial reconstruction teams that we did in iraq for a while. Is that part of the goal in any way whatsoever . And ill just elaborate on that a little bit. In iraq, when we tried to bring more of the iraqi people to our side, versus the terrorist side or the hussein side, we created provential reconstruction teams, to make microloans to bring local businesses and the investment in them as well as other participation like that with the state department. Is there anything like that being contemplated in afghanistan . I think the idea of integrating our approach is to try to achieve that same synergy of economic assistance and other support along with the military campaign. Although its structured somewhat differently in terms of the campaign, the best practice, lessoned learned, it can still be applied when were ensuring were knitted up as two two departments in our overall efforts. I didnt read your prepared statement, it may be this there, but you said were moving from measurement of accomplishment, not time. Is that correct . We measure our success . Yes, sir, conditionsbased. That said to me a world of good. When you use time, we staying there until x time and then were gone. We dealt with that in the last administration for a long time. We protracted our investment in the country. Now that were measuring accomplishment, were seeing what we can do with the ultimate goal. Which is Regional Cooperation and hopefully less for terrorism and people like that. Is the afghan compact one of the benchmark measures were using to measure accomplishments in afghanistan . Yes, it is, senator, as of within it, the fact has a number of measurements, benchmark measurements for corruption, Economic Development, et cetera, that we will use to measure the progress of the Afghan Government. What do you see as the consequences for not reaching those benchmarks . For the players involved. Well, ultimately, for the players involved, for the Afghan Government, its the success of their effort to govern the country, to govern effectively, to have a democracy in afghanistan, to eliminate corruption, to promote the rule of law, to develop the economy. Its in the afghans selfinterest to meet those benchmarks. They, themselves, have adopted those benchmarks and advocate for them. This thursday at fort benning were standing up a group, i understand general mattis is going to be there, he just made that announcement today, a Security Forces Assistance Brigade that will be going to afghanistan march the 1st. Thats a significant commitment. My state of georgia, with the investment we have in manpower and material going to afghanistan, our success is a huge thing looked forward to by people in my state. What is this group thats going to go from georgia, what is it going to add to our effort in afghanistan, and what are we looking for them to achieve . Our goal, senator, is to integrate those brigades into the train, advise and assist structure in the mission, which is to ultimately create a more lethal and effective Afghan Security force, as well as provide some key capabilities that are gaps for the Afghan Forces currently. But primarily, its the train, advise, assist role that they will help to improve the Afghan Forces so they can operate more independently. I sense were making a bigger effort for training of afghan troops and afghan resources to fight for themselves. Is that correct . Thats a major focus, yes, sir. Is the Moody Air Force base in valdosta, georgia where were Training Afghan pilots, another investment were making in Training Afghans do for themselves, we in the past have been doing for them. Yeah, the air force modernization is a key piece, includes not only the american equipment, but the training piece, so they can provide that key enabler to their operations. Thank you both for what youre doing. Thank you. Senator menendez. Thank you, mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing. Its been nearly a year and a half since the committee has held a hearing on the United States longest war. So i appreciate the opportunity to both of you for your testimony. Its been nearly six months since the administration announced its new strategy for south asia, which as far as i can tell is similar to the old strategy. I understand the administration is focused on conditionsbased metrics for success and eventual withdrawal of u. S. Forces. But i hope we can get a little more clarity to exactly what are our desired outcomes for our troops and for our Foreign Policy goals in afghanistan. Secretary sullivan you in your testimony, as well as in responses, youve talked about a number of meetings and consultations youve had during your tenure. But i havent heard about the role of usa id, or our plans to support Good Governance structures or Economic Developments, critical components of successful countries. Are we talking about, for example, civilian surge here to try to create the Good Governance . I think some of the reasons the taliban had some success is because the Central Government isnt as responsive to its people and its needs as it should be. Can you speak to that . Thats a very important component, senator, ill give you some specific examples. Usa id is providing support to the Afghan Government to run their elections coming up in this year parliamentary elections, president ial elections next year. My message to president ghani, which he was receptive to and embraced, was how important it was that the afghans considered their record of commitment to democracy. Theyve had a number of elections, some more successful than others, in the last 16 or 17 years. But its important that these elections go forward. Usaid is providing support to the government. I met with the opposition political leaders while i was there at the embassy to talk to them about the importance of free and fair elections, and the support that the United States government, through usaid was going to be providing toward that end. Let me ask you, since your testimony says that elections are vital, what specific diplomatic developmental and governance tools to usaid and state are you utilizing to support those, and whats the realistic time frame for you to be part of delivering it through those entities . Time frame is tight. We the original schedule for parliamentary elections was this july. Based on my conversations in kabul, that will likely slip to this fall, probably october. But it cant slip to next year. Theyve got to be done before the president ial elections. What are we doing in terms of resources. Specific support. For example, funding and providing advice on creating voter roles. And voter assistance. What we do here in the United States to support our leks, elections, providing both advice and monetary assistance to the election commission, both at the at the National Level and at the provincial level so that the vote is fair and accurate. Let me ask you, would you agree that the taliban are able to build marginal support for some key constituents largely due to disillusionment and distrust of the Central Government . I think the taliban is a broad term. There are elements of the taliban that are more successful, and more influential than others. And some have more of a political following than others. One of the strategies of president ghani is in engaging the taliban to the extent that we can in political discussions is peeling off those elements of the taliban that can be we can reconcile with, and then going after those elements of the taliban that are despite all our efforts in treaties dedicated to violence and terrorism. I say that because in 2014 i was pleased the Senate Passed the afghan accountability act which laid out a framework for the United States to work collaboratively with afghan and International Partners to meet meaningful reforms and transparency in the Afghan Government. I hope we can revisit the legislation and ensure the committee is effectively overseeing diplomatic and developmental efforts that the United States is making in afghanistan, and ensure that we are supporting Institutional Reforms to safeguard governance structures. I look forward to speaking to the chairman about that opportunity. Let me just take one last moment, at our hearing on the 2017 trafficking and persons report back in july, you offered to brief me on the departments determinations regarding the child soldiers list. As i understand it, the secretary decided to include a waiver for afghanistan, despite the recommendation of his staff, knowing full well that afghanistan employs child soldiers. You also offered to brief me on a written plan submitted by the cuban government to become eligible for a waiver from a downgrade to tier 3 and clarification of malaysias upgrade despite clear statutory language directing otherwise. Its been nearly seven months since that hearing. Despite repeated attempts from my office and requests to follow on, we have received no information. So can you commit yourself, after seven months, to give me the briefing you said youd give me, and to provide the information you said youd provide . I apologize for that failure, senator. I commit to that now. I wasnt aware of the request. But i cant blame anyone else than myself. I made those commitments, and i will follow up immediately. I appreciate that. Thank you, senator johnson. Thank you, mr. Chairman, thank you both for your service. Secretary schriver, i want to go back to senator isaksons questions about measuring accomplishments. Im the accountant on the panel here. I dont need exact numbers, but i want basically your assessment of troop levels of our enemies. Where is the you know, what is the number of members of the taliban right now . Im not sure i can give you a number that i have great confidence in. A ballpark. I mean, are we talking thousands, tens of thousands . Where are we at . In terms of actual dedicated fighters with your permission id feel more comfortable taking the question because there is the deputy secretary said there is different variations of taliban, and they do have a tendency to melt away during nonfighting season. So with your permission, ill take the question and well provide you i definitely want that kind of data. Yes, sir. What percent would you say are the terrorist element . Maybe this is for secretary sullivan. 10 , a small percentage . Is there a im sorry, senator. What percentage of the taliban would you consider the terrorist element versus those we might be able to negotiate with . Id have to defer to my colleagues both at d. O. D. And the Intelligence Community on that. So you can expect that in terms of written questions for the record. Yes, senator. Same assessment of the Haqqani Network. Oh, before i move on, is your assessment that the force of y assessment that the force of taliban is growing . Is it declining . Is it stablizing . I think we will have a better assessment of that when the traditional fighting season starts and we can see the impact on the battlefield of our new strategy. Again, there is differences of variations of fighters. And those that are supportive politically, idealogically but not dedicated necessarily to picking up arms. What i want is assessment of what you thought the size of the troop level was back 16 years ago, maybe 10 years ago. I kind of want a trend here. I want to see what progress or lack of progress is being made against taliban, Haqqani Network. Then let me ask about isis. Is that a growing presence . Do you have any assessment how many isis fighters are now located in afghanistan . Again, well get assistance from the Intelligence Community to give us better figures. I know there is concern about returning foreign fighters given developments in syria, iraq, so its something that we are watching very carefully, and well provide you with an assessment. You mention irreleva, i was go here next. What was the change in strategy . You used to have the winter pause, we would leave them alone. Can you describe in greater detail what we are doing as well as any change in rules of engagement . Sure. From u. S. Military perspective several elements, one is up lift part of that. And key to that is role of any Additional Forces would play. So that relates to the realignment of resources as well. We are involved in trying to increase the lethality and capability of the Afghan Security forces, part of that is in equipment, provision part of that is training. Part of that is actually being in enabler to some of their operations. I think what we can say in terms of another change is the afghan approach to the conflict in addition to trying to hold gains. There is more offensive action taking the fight to the taliban. We are helping with that to fill in key capabilities as enablers ultimate we want an afghan course that is less relying on the support of u. S. And nato forces. Is it safe to say we are keeping up pressure during winter versus last administration easing off . The over all tempo is down, but the operations do continue to some extent, yes. Is that one of the reasons secretary sullivan that we are maybe seegs the terrorist attacks . Zbli wanted to add to that when we met with general last week, particularly with respect to operations against isis, that those have continued. And in fact there have been in recent days significant operations ongoing. So there is a fighting season, traditionally in afghanistan, but our operations in afghanistan are trying to break that mold a little bit. Okay. Ive run out of time but definitely be submitting those questions for the record. Thanks, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator merkley. Thank you very much for being here. I appreciate your service. As has been mentioned things are not going well told in afghanistan. U. S. Coalition controls less territory than ever before. Ho profile attacks. And at the foundation, i think, lies some pretty significant confusion about what u. S. Policy is. And i want to explore, as senator shaheen did, a few of those areas. Maybe most significantly is this administrations position on the Peace Process moving forward. I appreciated your answer, secretary sullivan in response to chairman corker, that you believe, and i believe you are representing the state departments position, that there is a role for the taliban in a Peace Process Going Forward. Ambassador haley mirrored that statement earlier this year. But heres what the president of the United States said a week ago. And he was definitive. He said, quote, we dont want to talk with the taliban. There may be a time, but its going to be a long time. That seems to be in direct contradiction to the position that you just articulated to this committee, that you believe the state department believes there is room for the taliban in those negotiations. So you can see that the world and those involved in the Peace Process may be pretty confused about what the u. S. Position is. What is it . Is it the position you articulated before the committee or is it the position that the president articulated a week ago . Well, i think the president s position, and i actually had the opportunity to speak with president gan ee shortly after the president , President Trumps statement. And i think president gany, i think president was horrible terrorist attack last month in kabul. They are not prepared to negotiate. And it might be a long time before they are willing to negotiate. That was the thrust, as i understand it as the president remarks. And thats certainly the view that president began ee has. Hes extremely upset about what happened pmt and he wants to take a hard stance against those against the taliban that slaughtered innocent men women and children on the streets of kabul. But you just said in response to senator corker, you believe there is a role for the taliban. The president didnt put conditions on this. He said we dont want to talk with the taliban. So do we believe they have a place at the negotiating table . Or do they not . They do. I dont think that there is a place for the taliban for those elements of the taliban that plotted those terrorist attacks last month, they are not sewing indication they are willing to sit at the table. I think thats what the president was the sentiment he was expressing. I understand you are in a difficult position when the president adds no subtles to these statements but thats not what he said. He said definitively we dont want to talk with the taliban. And you can understand when the president makes statements they hold more water than the secretary makes. I know there is confusion because we have direct contradictory statements. Secretary i want to talk to you about transparency. There was some disturbing reports recently that the department of defense limited special inspector regarding information that they could make public. They were informed that they were not to release public data on the number of districts, the population living in there controlled by the afghan or contested by both this is following on instructions by the department of defense that this special inspector was not allowed to release numbers regarding losses by u. S. Backed Afghan Forces. This is the first time that the special inspector has been told they cant disclose information that was previously public and is not classified. Im very concerned that the department of defense is trying to pull the cover over data that we all use, including our constituents use to try to understand whats happening in afghanistan given some really disturbing trend lines. This doesnt suggest this administration wants to make sure that my constituents have enough information to make a decision Going Forward. Can you speak to the limitations placed on the special inspectors reports to congress. Well, we are going to work very closely with the special investigator to make sure there is the transparency that you need, that i think we all benefit from. There may be considerations in the future about operational security, the kind of things that you dont want to telegraph to the enemy, but i can tell you our goal is to be transparent. We need the support of the people. We need the support of this committee. And the congress. And i think the way to do that is to be transparent and open. So we will continue to work with the special investigator to achieve that. Why was they stopped from reporting losses . They were able to include the number of casualties among afghan troops . I think there may be some misinformation. I think there was information that sag ar classified themselves and that may have been based on what information was provided by the afghans and their own classification. But as general matter, senator murphy, let me tell you we will work to resolve that and work to be transparent, its important to us. Thank you. Thank you. Senator paul. You know, after 16 years, thousands of lives, probably a trillion spent the afghans dont seem to be able to defend themselves. People say if we left tomorrow, the taliban would take over, therefore we have to stay. When will the afghans be able to defend themselves, mr. Schriver. I would be less tant to puhey time frame on it. I would share every frustration about the time and investment. I do think the approach that weve adopted, we are six months into it, we are not into the new fighting season yet, i think gives us better chance to battlefield which give us a better chance of settlement. The original mandate to go against those who aided and a betted or attacked us on 9 11. Specific individuals still looking for that aided or attacked or involved with the 9 11 attack . Senator, had, i believe there were both elements of remnants of al qaeda still in existence in afghanistan, as well as the were both elements of remnants of al qaeda still in existence in afghanistan, as well as the morley that wile. There is a real question whether they want to come here antique us or control afghanistan. Whether this is a civil war in afghanistan. By all appear ns it is a civil war in afghanistan. So i think there is a real question whether this has anything more to do with 9 11. You can see the torys still favored not letting us leave. Are we going to be discussing this in 250 years from now . I think there is an argument to be made that our National Security has actually made more per a lust the more we spend and longer we stay there. And im not saying we dont go after those who attack us and plot to attack us, but everybody comes, we are not nation building when in reality we are nation building. They dont think we are doing enough nation building. And if you look at the list of things we have spent money on, 45 billion on natural gas gas station in the Defense Budget because we are greinke up afghanistan. We have to put a green footprint on afghanistan. Which turned out nobody had a natural gas car over there, so we bought them cars, so no one had money, so we got them credit cards that they can use at the gas station. Thats absurd. And people are mortgage fioutra that. And yet they looked at it finally and found out there was a court yard with Tall Buildings all around it and said we cant have an embassy where everybody can shoot down in the court yard and i think it was never occupied we spent a 10 year least on it. Millions of dollars getting to trillions. Will is no military solution. We dont know who to negotiate it. We dont know who the good guys in the taliban are or who are not. We dont see to be forthright how many people we are fighting, is it 100,000 . One million . We had 100,000 troops there. We can all win. They all slink away when we are there. And then come back. Maybe its time to have a frank discussion about this. We are spending 50 billion a year, i would give you will military a pay rise. I would upgrade the nuclear ars arsenal. There are all kinds of things we can do with the money. But we have to reassess this. I dont know how we can negotiate with the taliban, are we going to negotiate with the people just exploded something . Obviously not. But good guy forum somewhere. We dont flow that. We are impossible situation. So i see no hope for t and i feel sorry for putting the military in this position. And we shouldnt be nation building. We are not that good at it. And i hope somebody will come here some day from administration and say, its time that we reassess what we are doing in afghanistan. So i dont see a Bright Future for afghanistan. And i dont fault the military. I just dont think there is a military solution. Thanks. Well, i actually would you like to respond to that . Sure. Senator, i think our policy acknowledges that there isnt a military solution or a complete solution. The military has to be part of the solution. And we have to train and annie equip the afghans to fight this war against the taliban. Everybody but we have for 16 years. When is enough enough . I understand its americas longest war. But our security interests in afghanistan and in the region are significant enough, our commitment to the Afghan Government made over 16 years, we are doing with the minimal amount of troops and money that we think can be committed to back the Afghan Government in their struggle against the taliban. To get back to your original point about terrorists, everybody is against, even the taliban is against isis. Its a very complex battlefield. So the taliban is fighting isis. And its a very complex political and military situation. And our strategy is trying to navigate those complex waters in a way that supports the Afghan Government both militarily and politically so that we can get the taliban to the negotiating table and at least negotiate with elements of the taliban that are not committing to blowing up men, women and children on the streets of kabul, that there is a more reasonable element to get a settlement to more stable situation. Out of curiosity, what is our annual spend rate right now all in . For afghanistan on assistance, its roughly but all in. I can give you for assistance its roughly 780 million a year. But im talking about support. Security. Depending how you calculate it, direct support, Afghan Security fund has been roughly, this last, pardon me the current year is about 5 billion wie support directly the u. S. Forces in country. And i believe thats 13 billion. And then there are supporting elements to the over all military effort which might bring the total number up closer to 45 billion. Now, just out of curiosity, so we jump from the 18 billion d you are talking about to 45 billion, tell me . A big piece of that is efforts outside the immediate country, the immediate theater for logistic support. So it does depend how you calculate that number. There is a big logistics chain. There is a big support chain. And so really a lot of that would be contractors and others who are helping support the direct efforts that are under way by our own troops . Correct. And other military elements that are supportive of the in theater in country fight, yes. And again this is just for edification here. So all in, what do you think our annual effort is there . Including the state departments efforts, the other departments that are under way, doing other kinds of thing. We have multiple departments working together to help what is occurring in afghanistan, transpiring in as postpositive way, plus the efforts we have with contracts, troops and others, what would you put the over all number at and an annual basis . This is back of the envelope, assistance piece just mentioned would put it above 45 billion, close to 46. But certainly we can break that out and give detailed numbers in how we arrive at that. I was going to ask if we could get that break down number. Because it is thats a large number. And it looks like about 2 of the total budgets in democracy in trying to find the end to the war, and 98 is pursuing the security war efforts. And i think some of us wonder if thats the right mix. So i just am using parts of my time now, i usually dont ask questions on the front end. I support a conditions based effort. And i think thats only way you are ever going to get to a place where people are going to negotiate with you. I understand there are elements pushing and taliban is fighting isis. We had, its an Interesting Group of characters, if you will, that we are dealing with in afghanistan. I think the point that has been made, and is true, i mean the fact is that the afghan, if you took their entire gdp, it count support the security efforts that are under way. Just wouldnt pay for it t a. And all of this discussion about mining Precious Metals up in the mountains that have no railway to them, ive been hearing that forever. And i know et cetera likely not to occur during my lifetime. So i think the point is well made. I mean, we are in fact here for a long, long haul. And i think it is true that without the support that we have, they have a 30 of the folks who are part of the Afghan Military and security leave each year. So we have had this, you no he, we watched training exercises there. They just dont stay. They go back home. Obviously, they have had significant fatalities. If i could on our own front, over the laz 12 months of activity, how many fatalities have we had with u. S. And or nato forces . Again, ill have to take to give you, id prefer not to give you an incorrect statistic. But its been relatively light since our new strategy. But ill get you an actual number. And as we look at embedding some of our best and brightest a little more deeply into the afghan operations, whats our sense there . I know weve had conversations where there have been concerns about some of the most talented folks that we have serving in our military being embedded in that way. And are we anticipating that casualty rate to increase or do we feel like we can continue on this low casualty rate trend . Well, our hope and our expectation is based on increasing the capabilities of the Afghan Forces themselves. Theyll be more successful on the battlefield. And even if we are providing train and assist, advice and assist function or enabling function, the effectiveness of the force themselves would result in less casualties. Well certainly learn more about the effective piece when this picks up in the traditional fighting season. Senator markly. Thank you, mr. Chairman, thank you both for your testimony. And secretary sullivan thank you for your personal assistance with the resident in sudan who has been freed in large part because of your efforts. As we talk about these macro issues, i have an enormous amount of frustration. Feeling like i hear the same story every couple years. We adopt a modestly different strategy. And we say well we are turning the corner of the we heard from president gauny last year. We heard we are turning the corner. By what did we hear from 2011 . We heard from president obama we were turning the corner. We heard from general petraeus that the Afghan Forces had turned a corner. And we have the acetaminophen same set of aspirations somehow well keep training and somehow now the training will actually result in a fighting force that fea fiercely wants to fight for the government of afghan. Yet we never get there. We continually believe and hope there is going to be a march vest Es Development to a functional gofrt but we dont get there. Right now we have the Vice President out of the country not being allowed to return. We have a growth in ethnic divisions within the political establishment from uzbek to others. We have essentially paralysis between the National Unity government in terms of the ceo Abdul Abdullah and the president. And then we have other aspirations but now we are really turning the corner on corruption. Well, we cherry pick little pieces to say there is a little bit of improvement here and there. But in general, no. Massive corruption that destabilizes all of the efforts of whatever efforts Afghanistan Government is making but also our money has been helping to drive the corruption. Because ocean halthe price has higher because of the money we have poured into the country. Then will is the very fact that our presence remains a recruiting mechanism for the taliban. This sense of deep in the soul of the bill ards of afghanistan that they dont like foreigners goes back, they stopped throughout history, they have stopped one Foreign Invasion after another after another. And i recall ht words of poet Robert Kipling who often wrote about wars around the world, but his poem about afghanistan closed with something along the lines of, if you are wounded and lying on the afghanistan plain, roll over on your rival and blow out your brains before the women of afghanistan come tout and carve up what remains. And so we have these set of yes well get there on corruption but we dont. Yes well get there on training but we dont. Yes well get there on effective government but we dont. Meanwhile, we continue to paint a rosy scenario. And we heard a very rosy scenario from you all today. And i feel we are going to grip this as a nation, government, we have to have an honest conversation about why they may be impossible to realize. So one of the aspirations is the political settlement. Thats another piece of that. Why do they want that . They control more territory than they controlled in 2001. They are gaining ground. They are creating chaos. They are get tlting through ther immer of the capital and assaulting an international hotel. Blowing up key locations. Packing an ambulance full of explosives and somehow gets through our perimeter and in the middle of the city and blows things up, massive explosion. This is me plea and hope that we can have an honest discussion about these aspirations that we keep putting forward in slightly different versions, but really not gaining ground. And ill just throw that out there for your thoughts and comments. Well, i dont know that there is a lot you said, senator, that i would necessarily disagree with. I dont think that there is a rosyization in kabul. And i dont think president began ee would agree there is. The attacks last month were a real shock to many people in the government and to a number of the Afghan People, ngos and political leaders that i met with. There is no doubt that there is a serious challenge we face in dealing with afghanistan. It took us months to come up with the policy that we developed, the Regional Policy we developed the south asia strategy, because it is that challenging. The situation you posited is as challenging as it is. One option is simply to withdraw. We decided we couldnt do that. We have come up with, and we are proposing this policy, its a Regional Policy. As i mentioned in my opening statement, i met with the Foreign Ministers in new york for the five Central Asian countries that border afghanistan to the north. We are also working with india. India has made billions of investment in afghanistan. It cant be just the United States that solves afghanistan. Its a regional strategy. I dont want to come here and say henry kissingering light at hand, i cant say that to you. But we have a policy we believe in. We want to stick to it and per severe. And we think it is the outcome and significance to u. S. National security is such that we cant fold our tents because just there were terrorist attacks in kabul last month. We need to per severe, but i dont want to leave you with the impression we have a poly annish view that we will have peace break out this summer in kabul. My time is out. Ill close with this comment. My concern is no clear metrics for success just means we are setting ourselves up to accept whatever level of failure occurs and still just say we are staying, we are staying, we are staying. Because its always hard in any situation we have sent in troops where we can say the strategy is not working. The 8th twist on the old strategy, call it a new strategy, its going to fail at some point we have to recognize there is fundamentals here that makes the direction of our policy ineffective. So just one more interjection, maybe another one later. It does appear that in iraq we left, we came back. It does appear there is a reasonable chance of the Country Holding together with proper government nan governance and becoming a more fully functioning country, but they have resources. Afghan has no resources. Afghanistan never going to have any resources. That compared to the iraq situation. I mean, is there a credible end . I mean, even in the event there is reconciliation with taliban, if you will, paint to us, paint the picture of what it would look like . The event there was an actual, they do control more territory . I know whether this is new ech fort we expect to gain 20 and get things back to where they were a few years ago. But they are still going to control tremendous amount of territory. We are still going to have, you know, tremendous amount of illicit behavior taking place. In the event they were to reconcile somehow with the current government, with ghany and others, give us a picture what that would look like Going Forward and what our role would be . Well, i think the picture has to be, as i said to senator markly, afghanistan in a region, as opposed to afghanistan itself. Because as you point out afghanistan doesnt sit on a trillion dollars worth of oil wealth the way iraq does. A large amount funding Government Relations in iraq. We have to integrate afghanistan into the region. There has been discussions with the uzbek governments about transmission of electricity into afghanistan, for example. The discussions with india, india wants to do business in afghanistan. And ultimately, as we have urged president ghany, the bilateral relationship has to improve. If that does, then we think there is a viable future economically for afghanistan. The key, in my opinion, is the relationship between afghanistan and pakistan. If we cant solve that, this problem isnt going to go away. And its in pakistans interest to solve the situation in afghanistan as well. Senator gardener. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you both. Secretary schriver and secretary sullivan for your testimony today. I want to reflect on isaacson fort benning and armed services. And the spring, fort carson in colorado home to the Fourth Infantry Division will be deploying troops to the spring later spring. Thank them for the service and men and women around the globe that continue to stand up for our country and their interests. According to bbc news report, and perhaps you talked about this earlier today, january 31st they stated taliban fighters who u. S. Forces spent money to defeat are actively over 70 in afghanistan. Shows that the taliban are in full control and have an active presence and further 273 districts significantly higher than previous estimates of taliban strength. Could you address that a little bit . When we were in afghanistan two years ago i believe it was, we met with general campbell, and talked about authorities that we were operating under in afghanistan. And we have seen those authorities change. And that has made a difference in afghanistan. But with this bbc report, do we need additional change to those authorities . And what does that mean . We have certainly seen these reports and we are concerned about reports of taliban gains in some of the rural or less populated areas. They dont control any major Population Center. They have been denied strategic goal of overrunning a provence. But clearly not where we want to be. So part of our train assist mission and enabling function is to help the Afghan Security forces, when on the offense, and they ultimately have to be able to hold territory as well. That will change hopefully the calculus of the taliban and understand they cant prevail on the battlefield, and will ultimately lead to political process. Would you like to address the issue of authorities, if current authorities for u. S. Forces operating against certain elements, do they need to be expanded or refined on top of what has already been done . I think where we stand right now, our commander in the field is comfortable with and our military officials are comfortable with. There will be a process of continuing to evaluate our sports to the Afghan Forces and through continually evaluation there may be a case in the future where we want to revisit that. But at this point i think we are comfo comfort. Secretary sullivan, you said we need to integrate into the region, this includes china, russia. There has been reports of russian taliban. Can you talk a little bit what you are seeing in terms of iranian and russia involvement . Certainly. We have seen with respect to russian involvement, and i was up at the u. N. Security council a couple of weeks ago and discussed this. We have seen Russian Support for elements of the taliban. As a hedging strategy. And some accusations that the United States is supporting isis, you know, false information campaigns. Conspiracy they are trying to generate . Trying to generate, very unhelpful and wildly inaccurate. So the russian influence has not been welcome. There there is a shiite minority in afghanistan. Shares border with iran. Just as iraq and iran has to exist in neighbors, so does afghanistan in iran. What we are concerned about is other influence by iran that would undermine afghan sovereignty. As we are with respect to irans influence in iraq. China has made investments in afghanistan. And i think we are looking for all countries in the region to support a peaceful prosperous afghanistan. Its not just going to be the United States that is going to be able to achieve that ultimate goal. Thank you. When you say russia support for elements of the taliban, what are you referring to . There are reports that russia has provided support to groups in northern afghanistan that are aligned with the taliban. And its sort of a hedging strategy. Its playing both sides, dealing with the ghany government in kabul, but also supporting the taliban. And we are not willing to go to the peace table today with taliban because of their violent terrorist activities in kabul. Elements of the taliban we believe at least are dealing with some parts of the russian government. And secretary schriver i was going to shift to asia but we are out of time. So ill yield back. Thank you both for testifying. Senator mark lee. I mean, markey. I do that often, sorry about that. No problem. I dont mind. I dont know about chuck, but i dont mind. So i thank you mr. Chairman. I think that we can agree that the United States needed to take swift action, and Decisive Action after september 11. It was important to reduce the likelihood that afghanistan would continue to be a sanctuary for terrorists who would be seeking to harm americans. The december 2017 statement of the National Security strategy is that the United States will give priority to strengthening states like afghanistan. Yet the National Defense strategy released the following month stated that the central challenge to u. S. Prosperity and security is the reemergence of longterm strategic competition, not fragile states like afghanistan. I think, mr. Schriver, i heard you say that we are now spending 45 billion a year in afghanistan. Is that the number that you used . Again, it depends on how its calculated. But bringing in elements outside the theater that are in support, you could have that number. And we can provide the breakdown. So 45 billion a year is an amazing amount of money to be spent, just by comparison. Andrew kladney who works at brand nye university and director of the Opioid Research facility, he said if you just took two months of afghanistan spending and dedicated towards an opioid crisis, we could have an Opioid Center in every single county in the United States of america. And just massachusetts alone we had 2,000 people die from opioid overdoses last year. 75 of them had fentanyl in their system. And we still dont have any more than 20 of americans who are in treatment who need it who would be qualified for it. So we could be looking at a vietnam war every single year in america just from opioids. And the funding is completely inadequate. So i guess from my perspective, as you look at priorities, saving american lives, making sure that we are protecting people, including veterans who are back and dont receive the treatment which they need, id like to ask you just to reflect upon that and the amount of mon r money we are spending there knowing it comes out of services looic that that could save lives, could save tens of thousands of lives, if the resources were there to provide that kind of help. It would either of you like to speak to that issue, resource allocation issue . I think we need to be mindful of the costs. And we certainly welcome the oversight and scrutiny and we should be held to task if we are making gains and getting closer to reaching our objectives, very fair and important questions to ask. I think we look at the enduring interests we have and that was the starting point when the new strategy was developed looking at region with two Nuclear Armed countries, looking at country that is foreign the terrorist organizations. And we think we developed a strategy that will give us a clans for success. But as the deputy secretary said earlier, there is no attempt to paint a rosy scenario. These are significant challenges to be sure. Mr. Sullivan. Yes. As secretary schriver said, it is an enormous cost. And youve drawn a stark contrast with what we can do with that money. The assessment we made in this administration was that the threat to u. S. National security from a withdrawal from afghanistan was such that we needed to make that commitment. And the problem that we face is, and ill just give you an example from the state department, we make a commitment to having our embassy in kabul, the number of u. S. Direct hires, state department employees, its in the hundreds, 500 and some odd employees,. We need 6,000 security personal contractors to protect that small group. Once we make a commitment to go in and make a commitment to the safety and security of our people, the cost multiplies. Again, and i appreciate that. Of course we thank you everyone for their service that takes on that responsibility. But its only to make the point that for one sixth of what you do in afghanistan, 45 billion we could take care of this crisis over a period of time. And we dont have the resources. So far you are here testifying on behalf of the administration for 45 billion more, essentially. And this administration has yet to put up one nickel for the opioid crisis, we are still waiting to resolve this issue in the budget. It will happen 14, 15 months without a single nickel on something that is killing americans every single day. Many of them veterans. And there is no money. They are saying this. Its so hard to find the money. Yet here if we cut your budget down by 7 billion there would be enough to put Opioid Treatment Center in every county in the country. So i would just ask you to be mindful of that trade off because everything is draining from these families that we could be helping. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Udall. Thank you both very much for your service. I wont repeat it but i also share the frustration youve heard from both sides of the aisle in terms of where we are in afghanistan. And i want to look back a little bit, because i remember at the time when i was in the house, and we voted for the authorization of force, president bush was very specific about us going after terrorists of global reach. Thats the term he used. And when i look at President Trump quote on the news strategy last sum are,he said we are not nation building again. We are killing terrorists. So what im probing, from both of you, is, you know, are we focusing on terrorists that have global reach that we believe are there in afghanistan . And how many are there . Or are we focusing, like the president said, just killing terrorists . I have a longer statement here, but basically says we are turning this over to afghanistan. We are going to let them govern. Well let them do t we wont tell them how to do it. And we are not nation building. So will you focus on the terrorists in the global reach. Because i think we have extended far beyond that not only in afghanistan but around the world. And i thought the way president george w. Bush phrased that was very important. Please. Flip a coin. You are absolutely right, senator. The reason we are in afghanistan is because of what happened on september 11th. Its still the reason we are in afghanistan. There is still remnants of al qaeda there. Isis has ma tmetastasized into afghanistan. If we go out of that country, we see the outreach terrorist that struck on september 11th. Having made that decision that we need to stop that platform from being recreated by the taliban, it then causes, as i was discussing with senator markie, a decision for the United States to maintain a presence and engagement in afghanistan automatically because of the security situation generates enormous costs. Just for the state department. So our strategy is an effort to reconcile to minimize the cost in u. S. Government both in treasury and more valuable lives in the state department and my colleagues in uniform. But also do all we can to support the Afghan Government so we dont have a taliban that resumes using afghanistan as a platform for terrorists. And could you add you mentioned isis again. We have seen with our allies and others the defeat of isis in their capital in raqqa. How many isis fighters have come over into afghanistan . There has been some discussion about that. Secretary schriver whether you answer t when you answer the first question there. Yeah, its something we are looking for, only in one region and then forces in another, would be harmful to our interests. So our ct mission, counter tell Rhythm Mission sometimes in combination with the Afghan Forces, sometimes unilateral is exactly as the deputy secretary said, is to prevent afghanistan from being a place where terrorists can launch, plan, support, in any way an attack against americans. Citizens our homeland or our interests. Our assessment is walking away would in fact create the potential for such a platform to reemerge. So do you have a number for me . A specific number . Can you get me one on the record how many isis fighters there in syria have made it in since the fall of raqqa . Well, well certainly work with the Intelligence Community to see what assessment can be made available, yes. The one thing that i think was kind of shocking to some on the committee was this 46 billion when you added it all up. I think as senator paul used the term 50 billion, but you are going to add us up and give us lt actual number. But what im wondering is the folks were fighting the taliban, isis, al qaeda, youve mentioned them. What kind of resources do they have . How much of countries outside and their own local resources, are they putting up 46 billion a year to get, as senator americamerely said, they control more territory than 2001 . How much are they putting up . What i would say senator udall, as secretary schriver said the taliban control unpopulated areas. What they are doing in those unpopulated areas is actually cultivating and producing narcotics, which they are selli selling. To get to senator markeys points the production of narcotics in afghanistan controlled by taliban is sky rocketing. And thats among the principal sources. What cost do you put on that . I dont have a dollar figure. But what i have is an estimate that whatever, and we can get you that from the intelligence, the tlar figure for what the taliban we think however defined, whatever definition of the taliban is, putting a dollar figure on that, 65 , rough estimate of how they finance themselves is through the sail, production and sale of narcotics. And so youll try to get us an overall number . Right. Because im interested in what our over all number is and what theirs is. And one of the great diplomats, richard hol brook, when he was in there, and both of you may know him, he started the strategy because of the growing of popcies, he said well allow h them to grow them until they shift over to another product, legitimate farming product or Something Like that. Are we trying anything like that in the areas that we end up capturing . Or are we just ee rradicating fields and putting a small farmer out of business . Well, first on the statistics you ask for, senator, several members of the committee, including with senator janson have asked, so mr. Chairman we will commit to providing all of that information. Some of it may be classified but well produce those stats, the best numbers we can get you on facts and figures. And then with respect to narcotics, senator, the state department has got a limited budget for counter narcotics efforts in afghanistan. There is a larger effort because of the talibans use of narcotics to Fund Operations against the u. S. Military in the Afghan Government. The u. S. Military is also committed to the counter narcotics effort. Thank you both for your service. Thank you, mr. Chairman. But we are no longer we had a major spring operation, if you will, eradicating poppy fields. And then that stopped. And to get specific to his question, that is no longer a Robust Program. Is that correct . Right. And just outs of curiosity, its not a Robust Program because . Well, i believe the u. S. Military has focused on the narcotics production in areas that are controlled by the taliban, both to limit the production in the country, but also to cut off the source of revenue to the taliban. So destruction of taliban financing, so to speak. Thats correct. There is an effort there is more comprehensive effort at illegally elicit financing. But in terms of the drug production and trade and money that they make off of that, there is certainly an effort to disrupt particularly storage facilities, distribution points, et cetera, its something that the Afghan Forces are focused on and we are assisting with. But flot tnot the fields themselves . Not similar to the programs we once had mentioned earlier, yes, sir. Senator coons. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you for your testimony and thank you for your dedicated work in extremely difficult areas of undertaking. Let me just add, if i could, two questions that havent been addressed in detail or passing by my colleagues. First, about other actors in had the region. Mr. Schriver, you had mentioned that part of regionalizing our approach is attempt at both expanding burr done to natural efforts. And part of our efforts in afghanistan have been the lack of reliable cooperation partnership, assistance support from regional players. I think senator gardener asked about russia and iran. Lets focus, if we could, on china, and the reports that they are constructing or planning to construct a military base in eastern afghanistan. Do you think there is ta chance that china could be constructive viable partner for United States in afghanistan . Do you think our pressure on pakistan will only succeed in pushing them closer to china . And how do you see china playing such a role in both the diplomacy and Development Efforts under way and the military security efforts that are under way, mr. Sullivan . Thank you, senator. I think there is the possibility that china on the Counter Terrorism front could be a partner. They certainly have their own concerns about terrorism within country and potential for lineages operating elsewhere. And for that to seep into china. Historic we have run into some difficulties. What they define as a terrorist inside and important difference there. But they do have an interest in stability in afghanistan. They do have an interest in ultimate political resolution. And i dont see how we get there without fundamentally addressing the terrorist problem. So in our discussions with china, it is an agenda item how we promote our cooperation and how we can ensure that they are constructive participant in the process under way in afghanistan. Mr. Sullivan. Yes, and with respect to Economic Developments, senator coons, certainly afghanistan would be included as a small part of what you know as chinas one boat, one road initiative. What we have found, and this goes to an observation that senator corker made, some significant investments by the chinese, for example, billions of dollars invested in ha copper pine mi mine that they have yet to get things from which now sets dormant. So economic challenges in afghanistan that the chinese have discovered that senator corker and i were discussing earlier. Accessing building the infrastructure in afghanistan to ever access its vast mineral potential is something i think may not happen in your lifetime. I agree that, i mean, visiting afghanistan gives you insight how undeveloped it is as a nation. It may have vast mineral resources, they are still there because they are so incredibly hard to access. Let me turn to humanitarian issues. U. N. Reports nearly half a million individuals, 450,000 became displaced or idps within afghanistan in the last year. And about 60,000 refugees returned from outside the country. Does the Trump Administration plan to increase, mr. Sullivan, budget requests to help them within afghanistan . And how does the Administration Strategy account for the dramatic number of refugees in pakistan and how that destabilizes the region and how that humanitarian challenge continues to be a contributor to conflict . That last point you raise is very significant. And it came up with all in my discussions in kabul last week. The pack tan to send back huge number of afghan refugees now in afghanistan would be very destabilizing. And one area where we credit the pakistanie government for what theyve done in supporting those refugees. And its part of our complex relationship with pakistan. We have on the one land our concerns with their lack of action to eliminate terrorists from these safe havens. But on the other hand they have provided these supports to all these refugees, which if they didnt, if they went back into afghanistan, would be a huge burden for Afghanistan Government. And the president is very concerned about that. Just to concern there are more than 2 million in pakistan, many of them dating to the soviet invasion of 79. Yes. And they are identified by the pakistani and they could be sent over the border. Let me ask a question thats not meant to be needlessly pointed but how does it affect our moral authority in having that conversation with the tach stany when the administration has decided to deport for people in the United States fleeing conflict or natural disasters in their country. How does that impact their conversations about saying to the pakistani, would be supportive if you would continue to host several million refugees in your country . Do they simply turn around and say why are you deporting hundreds of thousands of people who initially came to your country from civil wars or natural disasters . That issue hasnt been raised to me in my issue on pakistani government. Could. I would draw distinctions between the legal status under which the tps individuals were admitted here to the United States, but i take your point. More broadly, i must say thank you for your work. It is striking. The chairman earlier was saying all in, what are we talking about and the number 45 billion is going to hang over my thoughts for a number of weeks. 16, 17 years in. I am not convinced that we have a strategy to win, but a conditionsbased strategy and looking harder at our partners in the region strike me as at least giving us the potential for progress. I listened to testimony from both of you and the question and answer from both republican and democratic members. I dont think there is a clear path out of afghanistan, and i worry that the taliban will simply wait us out regardless of how long we are there and as a result, we may be there the rest of my life. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Were going to close. Are there any comments that were left hanging that youd like to respond to . Not from me, mr. Chairman, no. Okay. Well, look, we know you came into office and youve been in now for a year and a month and this is something you inherited. I think most of us appreciate the conditionsbased approach and the fact youre really dealing with the region and the fact that were pushing back against some of the duplicity that pakistan has been putting forth for years. I think we are all struggling just like you are to try to figure out a path forward when its pretty murky right now as to how we get to a place where afghanistan is able to function without significant support from the west and other countries, but i do think that the strategy that youve laid out is a better strategy towards that end, and obviously, we may ask for a classified briefing here in the near future to get into some of the details we werent able to discuss here. We thank you for your efforts and we thank you both for your transparency and your service to our country. We will leave the record open until the close of business on thursday. If you could fairly promptly answer any additional written questions that may come in wed appreciate it and with that, the meeting is adjourned. Coming up, the treasury secretary Steve Mnuchin testifies before the Senate Finance committee on the president s 2019 Budget Proposal. We will join his testimony live starting at 10 30 a. M. Eastern here on cspan 3. Veterans Affairs Secretary testifies about his agencys 2019 Budget Proposal thursday. The secretary appears before the House Veterans Affairs Committee Live at 8 00 a. M. Eastern here on cspan 3. Cspan, where history unfolds daily. In 1979, cspan was created as a Public Service by americas Cable Television companies and today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and Public Policy events in washington, d. C. And around the country. Cspan is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. White house budget director make m
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.